Fourth Quinquennial Review

of Schedules 5 and 8

of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981

Report and Recommendations from the

Joint Nature Conservation Committee

September 2002

CONTENTS

Executive summary....................................................................................................................2 1. The statutory basis of Quinquennial Reviews ...................................................................3 2. Previous Quinquennial Reviews........................................................................................5 3. Statutory changes since the Third Quinquennial Review..................................................5 4. Criteria for the selection of species for Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act, 1981 .......................................................................................................6 4.1 Rationale underlying scheduling ...................................................................................6 4.2 Guidelines for recommending species for scheduling...................................................6

5. Conduct of the Fourth Quinquennial Review ....................................................................9 5.1 Internal process ..............................................................................................................9 5.2 External process ...........................................................................................................10

6. Recommendations............................................................................................................10 6.1 Species currently listed on Schedules 5 and 8 .............................................................10 6.2 Addition of species to Schedule 5................................................................................11

Table 1 List of species recommended for addition to Schedule 5 ................................12 6.3 Addition of species to Schedule 8................................................................................12

7. Statement of reasons for recommendations .....................................................................12 8. Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................13 Appendix 1 List of organisations consulted as part of the Fourth Quinquennial Review in

December 2001 ....................................................................................................14 Appendix 2 Species other than birds specially protected under the Wildlife and Countryside

Act, 1981..............................................................................................................17 Appendix 3 Species protected by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations, 1994

..............................................................................................................................25 Appendix 4 Data sheets for the 11 species proposed for addition, or increased protection, to

Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 under the Fourth Quinquennial Review ..........................................................................................27

Water Vole ................................................................................................................28 Short Snouted Seahorse. ..............................................................................................32 Spiny Seahorse, (also known as Long Snouted Seahorse, Many Branched Seahorse).

................................................................................................................35 Angel shark ................................................................................................................38 Common Skate.............................................................................................................41 Black Skate ................................................................................................................45 Long-nose Skate ..........................................................................................................49 White Skate ................................................................................................................53 The Roman snail (also known as the apple snail; edible snail; vine snail)..................57 The Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet (or Talisker Burnet) .....................................59 The Slender Scotch Burnet ..........................................................................................61

Executive summary 1 This report by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee contains advice to Government

following the Fourth Quinquennial Review of Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, which list protected animals and plants respectively.

2 The report recommends increased protection for one species (Water Vole, to become fully

protected), partial protection for one species (Roman Snail), and full protection for seven marine fish (two Seahorses and five elasmobranchs) and two Burnet moths (the Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet (or Talisker Burnet) and the Slender Scotch Burnet). The Roman Snail is collected for food, the Seahorses are collected for sale and display and the elasmobranchs are largely caught as bycatch (with a small fishery known for Common Skate). Evidence has recently been obtained that two rare Burnet moths in Scotland have been collected excessively for sale. The case for protecting species that have a commercial value is likely to affect those who currently exploit these animals.

3 The Joint Nature Conservation Committee does not recommend the removal of any species

from either Schedule 5 or Schedule 8. 4 During the consultation for the Fourth Quinquennial Review, respondents also raised

important general issues concerning the operation of species protection under Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. These points will be followed up separately by the Head of Species Advice, Dr Ian McLean, but are not addressed in this report because they fall outside the remit of the Quinquennial Review process. Organisations consulted as part of the Quinquennial Review are listed on Appendix 1.

4 This is the first Quinquennial Review of Schedules 5 and 8 when the advice submitted by

the Joint Nature Conservation Committee goes to devolved administrations as well as to DEFRA. Currently, Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 applies to England, Scotland and Wales for the protection of endangered species, with new wildlife legislation planned for Scotland at the time this report was finalised.

5 It is anticipated that following previous practice, the Departments will consult widely in due

course on the recommendations to amend Schedules 5 and 8. This would be prior to laying the necessary Orders before Parliaments, to make those changes that are approved by Ministers after these departmental consultations.

- 2 -

FOURTH QUINQUENNIAL REVIEW OF SCHEDULES 5 AND 8 OF THE WILDLIFE

AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT, 1981 1. The statutory basis of Quinquennial Reviews Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 list animals (other than birds)

and plants which are specially protected. Under Section 22 of the Act, the Secretary of State may, by order, add any animal (other than a bird) to Schedule 5 or any plant to Schedule 8 when one or both of the following circumstances apply:

i. in his opinion, the animal or plant is in danger of extinction in Great Britain or likely

to become so endangered unless conservation measures are taken; ii. for the purpose of complying with an international obligation.

Conversely, the Secretary of State may remove any animal from Schedule 5 or any plant from Schedule 8, if, in his opinion, it is no longer endangered or likely to become so.

1.2 The protection afforded by the Act to animals and plants listed on Schedules 5 and 8

extends throughout Great Britain unless otherwise specified, and to adjacent territorial waters, which currently extend 12 miles out to sea. The Secretary of State may apply all or only some of the relevant provisions of the Act to animals and plants listed on the Schedules and may limit the protection afforded to certain times of the year or to particular areas of Great Britain. The provisions relate to a range of activities as summarised in the following sections 1.1.3 to 1.1.6.

1.3 For animals the provisions under Section 9 of the Act are:

Section 9(1) Killing, injuring or taking Section 9(2) Possession Section 9(4)

a. damaging or destroying any structure or place used for shelter or protection,

or obstructing access to this structure or place; b. disturbing animals while they are occupying structures or places used for

shelter or protection.

- 3 -

Section 9(5) a. selling, offering or exposing for sale, possessing for the purpose of sale, or

transporting for the purpose of sale; b. publishing, or causing to be published, any advertisement offering to buy or

sell. 1.4 For plants the provisions under Section 13 of the Act are: Section 13(1)(a) Picking, uprooting or destroying Section 13(2) a. selling, offering or exposing for sale, possessing for the purpose of sale, or

transporting for the purpose of sale; b. publishing, or causing to be published, any advertisement offering to buy or

sell. 1.5 Activities under Sections 9(2), 9(5) and 13(2) apply to live individuals, dead

specimens or derivatives. All wild plants are protected under Section 13(1)(b) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act against deliberate uprooting by unauthorised persons, but additional protection is afforded through scheduling.

1.6 Part of the protection conferred on species listed on Schedules 5 and 8 is a

consequence of the legal requirement to avoid the unnecessary killing, injury, destruction etc of protected wild animals and plants by organisations or individuals undertaking or authorising activities which might have this result. Public authorities have to comply with this requirement in their administrative decisions e.g. planning decisions.

1.7 Under Section 24 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act the Nature Conservancy

Council (NCC) was required, five years after the passing of the Act in 1981 and every five years thereafter, to review Schedules 5 and 8 and to advise the Secretary of State whether in its opinion any animal or plant should be added to or removed from the Schedules. The NCC was also empowered to make such recommendations at any time, outside the constraints of the five-yearly reviews. Recommendations were to be accompanied by a statement of the reasons which led to the advice. Under Section 133 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) became responsible for discharging these functions. Species currently included on the Schedules are listed on Appendix 2.

1.8 Following adoption of the EC Habitats and Species Directive, analogous protection

was afforded to certain wild animals and plants through the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations, 1994. The species receiving such protection are listed on Appendix 3.

- 4 -

2. Previous Quinquennial Reviews 2.1 In accordance with Section 24 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Nature

Conservancy Council and, subsequently, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee have carried out successive reviews of Schedules 5 and 8. The first of these Reviews was submitted in October 1986, the second in October 1991, and the third in June 1996.

2.2 In total, these Reviews have together recommended additional protection for 83

animals and 121 plants, lichens and fungi, and have recommended reduced protection for 7 species.

2.3 The recommendations submitted during the first three Quinquennial Reviews have

all been implemented through Orders made under Section 22 of the 1981 Act, except for the following:

i. the proposed deletion of the sandbowl snail Catinella arenaria from

Schedule 5 was rejected as there were doubts whether it was extinct; ii. the proposed addition of the wildcat/domestic cat hybrid was rejected; iii. the proposed addition of the pool frog was rejected due to the extinction of

the single native population of this species. 2.4 In addition, a further 5 plant species were added to Schedule 8 on the

recommendation of the Department of the Environment, because, although not endangered in Great Britain, they were listed on Appendix 1 of the Bern Convention.

3. Statutory changes since the Third Quinquennial Review 3.1 By reason of Section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998, functions such as the making of

Orders changing Schedules 5 and 8, as regards Scotland, are now exercisable by Scottish Ministers. In Wales, the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 transferred such Order-making powers, as regards Wales, to the National Assembly for Wales.

3.2 Section 81 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 amended Section 9 of

the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as regards England and Wales, by making it an offence for any person intentionally or recklessly to disturb a dolphin, whale or basking shark.

3.3 Section 81 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 also changed the penalty

provisions for offences committed under Sections 9 and 13 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in England and Wales. A person guilty of an offence under these sections is now liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

- 5 -

3.4 In addition, Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires the

Secretary of State, in England, and the National Assembly for Wales, in Wales, to publish a list of living organisms and types of habitat which in their opinion are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biological diversity in accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is the duty of the listing authority to take, or promote with others to take, reasonably-practical action to further the conservation of listed organisms or habitats.

3.5 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the legislation requiring JNCC to undertake the Quinquennial Review of Schedules 5 and 8, and also the nature of that Review remains unchanged.

4. Criteria for the selection of species for Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act, 1981

4.1 Rationale underlying scheduling

In compliance with the purpose and provisions of the relevant Sections of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the statutory nature conservation agencies will pursue scheduling when:

i. there is an international obligation to afford to the species legal protection;

ii. an animal or plant is in danger of extinction in Great Britain, or is likely to become so endangered unless conservation measures are taken, and legal protection is likely to improve its chances of survival.

Scheduling is considered to be particularly appropriate where there is a need to:

iii. protect an animal or plant species from direct human pressure such as

persecution, collection or trade;

iv. protect elements of habitat essential for the survival of an endangered species.

Scheduling also has the effect of raising awareness of the threats to species and thus the need for their protection.

4.2 Guidelines for recommending species for scheduling

Range of taxa under consideration For Schedule 5 - vertebrates other than birds, invertebrates.

For Schedule 8 - vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, fungi and algae.

All species of the groups listed above, including species at present on the schedules.

Taxa below species level under some circumstances (see 'Eligibility criteria').

- 6 -

Eligibility criteria For a species to be recommended for scheduling one of the eligibility criteria in each of the Sections A to D below should be met:

A Generally, only native (including re-established) taxa are to be considered.

Taxa introduced or thought to be introduced to Great Britain by man could be considered exceptionally, with the following provisos:

i. the organism is endangered or extinct in its native range, and

ii. preferably, the natural range reaches the north west coast of Europe

(i.e. continental distribution extends to the Atlantic coast of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany or Scandinavia; for marine taxa, the distribution includes the north west Atlantic area), and provided that

iii. information suggests that the organism is unlikely to have an adverse

impact on important native species or ecosystems.

B The taxon must be either: i. established in the wild in Great Britain or ii. occur as a vagrant in Great Britain and require international

protection or

iii. be believed extinct in Great Britain as a breeding species, but be in the process of re-establishment

or iv. be believed extinct in Great Britain, but with the possibility that it

could become re-established naturally.

C The taxonomic status of the organism must be well authenticated. Taxa below the species level could be considered, providing they are:

i. clearly recognisable (i.e. morphologically distinct), and ii. geographically or ecologically distinct.

- 7 -

D The taxon must be endangered in Great Britain, or likely to become so unless

conservation measures are taken, and/or be subject to an international obligation for protection.

One or more of the following may indicate that a taxon is or may become

endangered:

i. it is included in a JNCC-approved British Red Data Book as Extinct, Endangered or Vulnerable (or, in Red Lists drawn up using the recently revised IUCN criteria, as Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable);

ii. it has been well searched for but is known from only a single locality;

iii. it is confined to a particularly threatened habitat. The extent or

quality of the habitat is being significantly reduced or is likely to become significantly reduced, thus threatening the survival of the organism;

iv. it is rapidly declining in population, number of localities occupied or

range. Indicative would be at least 50% decline observed, estimated inferred or suspected in the last 20 years, or a decline of at least 50% projected, inferred or suspected to be likely in the near future. The decline must transcend normal fluctuations;

v. it is endangered, or likely to become endangered through being

targeted for exploitation or killing for commercial reasons and/or through being particularly attractive to collectors.

International obligations apply to a taxon which is:

vi. naturally resident and listed on Appendices I, II or III of the Bern

Convention; Annexes II, IV or V of the EC Habitats and Species Directive; Appendix I of the Bonn Convention (unless derogations are in force);

and/or

vii. endemic to Great Britain and included in a JNCC-approved British

Red List.

- 8 -

Decision criteria

An animal or plant taxon would be recommended for listing on the relevant Schedule only if scheduling has the potential to afford significant benefit to it, thus helping to arrest a decline or to facilitate an increase in population size, number of localities occupied or range. Potential benefits to be gained from scheduling are:

i. protection of animals at risk from persecution or other intentional killing or

injuring;

ii. protection of animals or plants from collecting, where this is a problem or is likely to become one;

iii. protection of structures or places which animals use for shelter or protection

(including breeding sites or other essential elements of the habitat);

iv. protection of animals from intentional or reckless disturbance;

v. protection of plants from intentional damage or destruction;

vi. protection of animals or plants from currently or potentially damaging trade, or other forms of exploitation.

5. Conduct of the Fourth Quinquennial Review

5.1 Internal process

5.1.1 The Joint Committee, at its September 2000 meeting, adopted a process for conducting the Fourth Quinquennial Review. A Fourth Quinquennial Review Working Group was established to assist JNCC to conduct the Review. The Working Group included staff from each of the three statutory nature conservation agencies and Prof. Crawley from the Joint Committee. It was able to call on taxonomic and conservation expertise from other individuals and organisations. During 2001, the Working Group:

i. endorsed the rationale, range of taxa, eligibility criteria and decision criteria

set out in Section 5 above; ii. applied these criteria to the species currently listed on Schedules 5 and 8; iii. considered species of wild animals and plants not currently listed on

Schedules 5 and 8; but where evidence indicated that they might meet the eligibility and decision criteria;

iv. considered whether any additional species might require protection in

consequence of an international obligation; v. considered the implications of the statutory changes brought in since the

Third Quinquennial Review, if any.

- 9 -

5.1.2 The Working Group considered the needs of the priority species under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, both in the context of the work being

undertaken to conserve those species through the Action Plan process, and also in the light of Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The Working Group considered these species within the framework of the eligibility and decision criteria set out in Section 4 above.

5.1.3 Following on from their work during 2001, the Working Group prepared a

consultation document which explained the rationale behind the Fourth Quinquennial Review, listed the species already protected, the species to which international obligations apply and identified species which might be candidates for scheduling. The documents also set out a proforma to take information for candidate species, to facilitate consideration for scheduling.

5.2 External process

5.2.1 Between December 2001 and February 2002 the JNCC carried out an

external consultation, inviting comments on the proposals set out in the consultation document, and also proposals for other species where change might be needed, in compliance with the eligibility and decision criteria. The consultation was sent to a range of relevant bodies and also published on the JNCC website.

5.2.2 The Working Group reviewed the comments and additional proposals

received during February and March 2002 using the agreed criteria and presented its conclusions to the Joint Committee at their meeting on 20 March 2002. Some additional evidence and views were made available to the Working Group from specialist colleagues in the conservation agencies during this period and some comments were obtained from independent referees on the evidence received to support the cases for candidate species.

5.2.3 On 16 April 2002, prior to the submission of the Fourth Quinquennial

Review advice to Government, evidence emerged of substantial collecting of large numbers of larvae of Burnet moths from the west coast of Scotland. Subsequent investigations revealed significant trade in some rare Burnet moths, which has resulted in two additional species being recommended for protection. At their meeting on 20 June 2002, the Joint Committee agreed to consider and determine their recommendations in relation to Burnet moths by postal action, and the recommendations were finalised by this process.

6. Recommendations

6.1 Species currently listed on Schedules 5 and 8 The JNCC has reviewed the species currently listed on the Schedules 5 and 8 against

the eligibility and decision criteria and concluded that no species merit removal from the Schedules at this time.

- 10 -

6.2 Addition of species to Schedule 5 The JNCC recommends that the following species be added to Schedule 5: Mammal: Water Vole, Arvicola terrestris (increased from partial protection) Marine fish: Short Snouted Seahorse, Hippocampus hippocampus Spiny Seahorse, Hippocampus guttulatus Angel shark, Squatina squatina Common Skate, Dipturus batis Black Skate, Dipturus nidarosiensis Long-nose Skate, Dipturus oxyrhinchus White Skate, Rostroraja alba Mollusc: Roman Snail, Helix pomatia Moths: Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet (or Talisker Burnet), Zygaena

lonicerae subspecies jocelynae Slender Scotch Burnet, Zygaena loti subspecies scotica

- 11 -

Table 1 List of species recommended for addition to Schedule 5 Species Level of protection Country presence Summary reasons Water Vole: Arvicola terrestris

Full protection E, S, W. Strong evidence of problems from all proponents; species will benefit from increased protection

Short Snouted Seahorse: Hippocampus hippocampus

Full protection E. Prevent commercial collecting; vulnerable to habitat disturbance

Spiny Seahorse: Hippocampus guttulatus

Full protection E, S, W. Prevent commercial collecting; vulnerable to habitat disturbance

Angel shark: Squatina squatina

Full protection E, S, W. Will prevent targeted fishing; will reduce bycatch problems

Common Skate: Dipturus batis

Full protection E, S, W. Will prevent targeted fishing; will reduce bycatch problems

Black Skate: Dipturus nidarosiensis

Full protection E, S, W. Will prevent targeted fishing; will reduce bycatch problems

Long-nose Skate: Dipturus oxyrhinchus

Full protection E, S, W. Will prevent targeted fishing; will reduce bycatch problems

White Skate: Rostroraja alba

Full protection E, S, W. Will prevent targeted fishing; will reduce bycatch problems

Roman Snail: Helix pomatia

Add to Schedule 5 for Section 9(1) killing, injuring & taking and Section 9(5) sale

E. Will prevent collection and sale for food; captive bred stocks would need sale licensing

Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet (or Talisker Burnet): Zygaena lonicerae subspecies jocelynae

Full protection S. Will prevent collection and sale of adults and early stages

Slender Scotch Burnet: Zygaena loti subspecies scotica

Full protection S. Will prevent collection and sale of adults and early stages

6.3 Addition of species to Schedule 8 The JNCC recommends that no species be added to Schedule 8. 7. Statement of reasons for recommendations 7.1 A summary of the current status of the species which the Joint Nature Conservation

Committee has recommended for additional listing on Schedule 5, or for increasing the protection of animals already listed on Schedule 5, is provided in Appendix 4, together with a statement of the reasons which led the Committee to arrive at their recommendations.

- 12 -

8. Acknowledgements

The members of the Fourth Quinquennial Review Working Group were: John Bratton, Countryside Council for Wales Prof. Mick Crawley, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Independent Member Andy Douse, Scottish Natural Heritage Ian McLean, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, staff, Chair of Working Group Roger Mitchell, English Nature Members of the Working Group consulted with specialists in the statutory conservation agencies and elsewhere to obtain additional background information and to check factual statements in the proposals submitted for consideration; we are grateful for the time and expertise of all who helped in this way. We are also pleased to acknowledge all those organisations and individuals who responded to the Fourth Quinquennial Review consultation, with candidate species for consideration to receive protection, with comments on the initial tranche of proposals, or with other comments on wildlife legislation and species protection.

- 13 -

Appendix 1 List of organisations consulted as part of the Fourth Quinquennial Review in

December 2001 *Action for Invertebrates *Amateur Entomologists' Society Angler's Co-operative Association Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group *Balfour Browne Club Bat Conservation Trust *Bee Improvement and Bee Breeders� Association *Bees, Wasps, and Ants Recording Society *Biological Records Centre Botanical Society of the British Isles (including BSBI Scotland) British Arachnological Society British Association of Nature Conservationists (including BANC Scotland) British Association for Shooting and Conservation British Bryological Society British Deer Society British Divers Marine Life Rescue British Dragonfly Society British Ecological Society *British Entomological and Natural History Society British Hedgehog Preservation Society British Herpetological Society British Horse Society British Isles Bee Breeders Association British Lichen Society *British Myriapod and Isopoda Group British Mycological Society British Naturalists' Association British Phycological Society British Pteridological Society British Trust for Conservation volunteers *British Trust for Ornithology Butterfly Conservation Byways and Bridleways Trust *CABI Bioscience UK Centre Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales Care for the Wild *Conchological Society of Great Britain & Ireland Council for National Parks Council for the Protection of Rural England Countryside Council for Wales Countryside Management Association *Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs *Dipterists� Forum English Nature *Environment Agency Environmental Investigation Agency Fauna and Flora Preservation Society

- 14 -

Field Studies Council *Forestry Research, Alice Holt Lodge *FreshwaterLife Friends of the Earth (including FOE Cymru) Friends of the Earth Scotland *Froglife Green Alliance Greenpeace UK Herpetological Conservation Trust Institute of Biology International Fund for Animal Welfare International League for the Protection of Cetaceans International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Shark Specialist Group International Wildlife Coalition *Invertebrate Conservation Trust Invertebrate Link (formerly Joint Committee for the Conservation of British Invertebrates) John Muir Trust Mammal Society Marine Conservation Society (including MCS Scotland) Mountaineering Council of Scotland *National Assembly for Wales National Federation of Badger Groups National Federation for Biological Recording National Trust (including NT for North and South Wales) National Trust for Scotland National Small Woods Association *Natural History Museum Open Spaces Society Otter Trust People's Trust for Endangered Species Plantlife Plantlife Link *Pondlife Ramblers' Association (including RA Scotland and RA Wales) Reforesting Scotland *Royal Entomological Society *Royal Museum of Scotland Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (including RSPB Wales and RSPB Scotland) Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Scottish Conservation Projects Trust Scottish Council for National Parks Scottish Countryside Activities Council Scottish Countryside Rangers Association Scottish Environment Protection Agency *Scottish Executive Scottish Environmental Education Council Scottish Field Studies Association Scottish Natural Heritage Scottish Ornithologists' Club Scottish Scenic Trust Scottish Trust for Underwater Archaeology Scottish Wild Land Group

- 15 -

*Seahorse Trust Sea Shepherd *Shark Trust Society of Antiquaries of Scotland TRAFFIC International Vincent Wildlife Trust Welsh Historic Gardens Trust Welsh Sports Association (Outdoor Pursuits Group) Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society Wildflower Society Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Wildlife and Countryside Links The Wildlife Trusts (including Scottish Wildlife Trust and Association of Welsh Wildlife Trusts) Woodland Trust (including WT Scotland) World Conservation Monitoring Centre World Wide Fund for Nature - UK Youth Hostels Association (including YHA Wales) Young People's Trust for the Environment and Nature Conservation Zoological Society of London *Indicates added to the list of those consulted on the Third Quinquennial Review (including some organisations previously consulted via the former Joint Committee for the Conservation of British Invertebrates)

- 16 -

Appendix 2 Species other than birds specially protected under the Wildlife and

Countryside Act, 1981 SCHEDULE 5 (ANIMALS) Scientific name English name Sections of Act Year scheduled cited where complete protection is not afforded Mammals Arvicola terrestris Water vole Damage/destruction of 1998 place of shelter/protection S.9(4)(a) and disturbance

while in a place of shelter S.9(4)(b) only

Cetacea All dolphins, Tursiops truncatus porpoises, & Delphinus delphis whales - 1981; rest - 1988 Felis silvestris Wildcat 1988 Lutra lutra Otter 1981 Martes martes Pine marten 1988 Muscardinus avellanarius Dormouse 1988 Odobenus rosmarus Walrus 1988 Sciurus vulgaris Red squirrel 1981 Vespertilionidae and All bats 1981 Rhinolophidae Reptiles Anguis fragilis Slow worm Killing & injuring S.9(1) S.9(5) - 1981; (part); sale S.9(5) S.9(1) - 1988 Cheloniidae and All turtles 1988 Dermochelyidae Coronella austriaca Smooth snake 1981 Lacerta agilis Sand lizard 1981 Lacerta vivipara Viviparous lizard Killing & injuring S.9(1) S.9(5) - 1981; (part); sale S.9(5) S.9(1) - 1988 Natrix natrix Grass snake Killing & injuring S.9(1) S.9(5) - 1981; (part); sale S.9(5) S.9(1) - 1988 Vipera berus Adder Killing & injuring S.9(1) S.9(5) - 1981; (part): sale S.9(5) S.9(1) - 1991 Amphibians Bufo bufo Common toad Sale only S.9(5) 1981 Bufo calamita Natterjack toad 1981 Rana temporaria Common frog Sale only S.9(5) 1981 Triturus cristatus Warty (great 1981 crested) newt Triturus helveticus Palmate newt Sale only S.9(5) 1981 Triturus vulgaris Smooth newt Sale only S.9(5) 1981

- 17 -

Scientific name English name Sections of Act Year scheduled cited where complete protection is not afforded Fish Acipenser sturio Sturgeon 1992 Alosa alosa Allis shad Killing, injuring & taking S.9(1) - 1991, S.9(1), damage/destruction

of place of shelter/protection (4)(a)

S.9(4)(a) - 1998

Alosa fallax Twaite shad Damage/destruction of 1998 place of shelter/protection S.9(4)(a) only Cetorhinus maximus Basking shark 1998 Coregonus albula Vendace 1988 Coregonus lavaretus Whitefish 1988 Gobius cobitis Giant goby 1998 Gobius couchii Couch's goby 1998 Lota lota Burbot 1981 Butterflies Apatura iris Purple emperor Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Argynnis adippe High brown 1992 fritillary (previously sale only) Aricia artaxerxes Northern brown argus Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Boloria euphrosyne Pearl-bordered Sale only S.9(5) 1989 fritillary Carterocephalus palaemon Chequered skipper Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Coenonympha tullia Large heath Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Cupido minimus Small blue Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Erebia epiphron Mountain ringlet Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Eurodryas aurinia Marsh fritillary Sale only S.9(5) S.9(5) - 1989 Full protection 1998 Hamearis lucina Duke of Burgundy Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Hesperia comma Silver-spotted Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Leptidea sinapis Wood white Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Lycaena dispar Large copper Sale only S.9(5) S.9(5) - 1989 Full protection 1998 Lysandra bellargus Adonis blue Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Lysandra coridon Chalkhill blue Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Maculinea arion Large blue 1981 Melitaea cinxia Glanville fritillary Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Mellicta athalia Heath fritillary 1981 (Melitaea athalia) Nymphalis polychloros Large tortoiseshell Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Papilio machaon Swallowtail 1981 Plebejus argus Silver-studded blue Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Strymonidia pruni Black hairstreak Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Strymonidia w-album White-letter Sale only S.9(5) 1989 hairstreak Thecla betulae Brown hairstreak Sale only S.9(5) 1989 Thymelicus acteon Lulworth skipper Sale only S.9(5) 1989

- 18 -

Scientific name English name Sections of Act Year scheduled cited where complete protection is not afforded Moths Acosmetia caliginosa Reddish buff 1981 Bembecia chrysidiformis Fiery clearwing 1998 Gortyna borelii Fisher's estuarine moth 1998 Hadena irregularis Viper's bugloss 1988 Removed, believed extinct 1998 Pareulype berberata Barberry carpet 1981 Siona lineata Black-veined 1981 Thalera fimbrialis Sussex emerald 1992 Thetidia smaragdaria Essex emerald 1981 Zygaena viciae New Forest burnet 1981 Beetles Chrysolina cerealis Rainbow leaf beetle 1981 Curimopsis nigrita Mire pill beetle Damage/destruction of 1992 place of shelter/protection S.9(4)(a) only Graphoderus zonatus Water beetle 1992 Hydrochara caraboides Lesser silver water 1992 beetle Hypebaeus flavipes Beetle 1992 Limoniscus violaceus Violet click beetle 1988 Lucanus cervus Stag beetle Sale only S.9(5) 1998 Paracymus aeneus Water beetle 1992 Hemipteran bugs Cicadetta montana New Forest cicada 1988 Crickets Decticus verrucivorus Wart-biter 1981 Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa Mole cricket 1981 Gryllus campestris Field cricket 1981 Dragonflies Aeshna isosceles Norfolk aeshna 1981 Coenagrion mercuriale Southern damselfly 1998 Spiders Dolomedes plantarius Fen raft spider 1981 Eresus niger (cinnaberinus) Ladybird spider 1981 Crustaceans Austropotamobius Atlantic stream Taking S.9(1) (part); 1988 pallipes (white-clawed) sale S.9(5) crayfish Chirocephalus diaphanus Fairy shrimp 1988 Gammarus insensibilis Lagoon sand shrimp 1988 Triops cancriformis Apus 1988

- 19 -

Scientific name English name Sections of Act Year scheduled cited where complete protection is not afforded Sea-mats Victorella pavida Trembling sea-mat 1988 Molluscs Atrina fragilis Fan mussel Killing & injuring 1998 S.9(1); possession S9(2); sale S.9(5) Caecum armoricum De Folin's lagoon snail 1992 Catinella arenaria Sandbowl snail 1981 Margaritifera Pearl mussel Killing & injuring S.9(1) - 1991 margaritifera S.9(1) (part) Full protection 1998 Monacha cartusiana Carthusian snail 1981 Removed from Schedule 5 1988 Myxas glutinosa Glutinous snail 1981 Paludinella littorina Lagoon snail 1992 Tenellia adspersa Lagoon sea slug 1992 Thyasira gouldi Northern hatchet-shell 1992 Annelid worms Alkmaria romijni Tentacled lagoon-worm 1992 Armandia cirrhosa Lagoon sandworm 1988 Hirudo medicinalis Medicinal leech 1988 Sea anemones and allies Clavopsella navis Marine hydroid 1998 Edwardsia ivelli Ivell's sea anemone 1988 Eunicella verrucosa Pink sea-fan Killing, injuring & taking 1992 S.9(1); possession S9(2); sale S.9(5) Nematostella vectensis Starlet sea anemone 1988

- 20 -

SCHEDULE 8 (PLANTS) Scientific name English name Year scheduled Vascular plants

Ajuga chamaepitys Ground pine 1992 Alisma gramineum Ribbon-leaved water-plantain 1981 Allium sphaerocephalon Round-headed leek 1981 Althaea hirsuta Rough marsh-mallow 1981 Alyssum alyssoides Small alison 1981 Apium repens Creeping marshwort 1988 Arabis alpina Alpine rock-cress 1988 Arabis scabra (stricta) Bristol rock-cress 1988 Arenaria norvegica Norwegian sandwort 1981 Artemisia campestris Field wormwood 1981 Atriplex pedunculata Stalked orache 1992 (Halimione pedunculata) Bupleurum baldense Small hare's-ear 1981 Bupleurum falcatum Sickle-leaved hare's-ear 1981 Carex depauperata Starved wood-sedge 1981 Centaurium tenuiflorum Slender centaury 1992 Cephalanthera rubra Red helleborine 1981 Chenopodium vulvaria Stinking goosefoot 1988 Cicerbita alpina Alpine sow-thistle 1981 Clinopodium menthifolium Wood calamint 1981 (Calamintha sylvatica) Coincya wrightii Lundy cabbage 1988 (Rhynchosinapis wrightii) Corrigiola litoralis Strapwort 1988 Cotoneaster integerrimus Wild cotoneaster 1981 (Cotoneaster cambrica) Crassula aquatica Pigmyweed 1988 Crepis foetida Stinking hawk's-beard 1988 Cynoglossum germanicum Green hound's-tongue 1988 Cyperus fuscus Brown galingale 1981 Cypripedium calceolus Lady's-slipper 1981 Cystopteris dickieana Dickie's bladder fern 1981 Dactylorhiza lapponica Lapland marsh-orchid 1992 Damasonium alisma Starfruit 1981 Dianthus armeria Deptford pink 1998 England and Wales

only Dianthus gratianopolitanus Cheddar pink 1981 Diapensia lapponica Diapensia 1981 Eleocharis parvula Dwarf spike-rush 1998 Epipactis youngiana Young's helleborine 1988 Epipogium aphyllum Ghost orchid 1981 Equisetum ramosissimum Branched horsetail 1988 Erigeron borealis Alpine fleabane 1988 Eriophorum gracile Slender cottongrass 1988 Euphorbia peplis Purple spurge 1981

Removed 1992 Eryngium campestre Field eryngo 1981 Filago lutescens Red-tipped cudweed 1988 Filago pyramidata Broad-leaved cudweed 1992 Fumaria reuteri (martinii) Martin's ramping-fumitory 1988 Gagea bohemica Early star of Bethlehem 1988 Gentiana nivalis Alpine gentian 1981 Gentiana verna Spring gentian 1981 Scientific name English name Year scheduled

- 21 -

Gentianella anglica Early gentian 1992 Gentianella ciliata Fringed gentian 1988 Gentianella uliginosa Dune gentian 1992 Gladiolus illyricus Wild gladiolus 1981 Gnaphalium luteoalbum Jersey cudweed 1981 Hieracium attenuatifolium Weak-leaved hawkweed 1992 Hieracium northroense Northroe hawkweed 1992 Hieracium zetlandicum Shetland hawkweed 1992 Himantoglossum hircinum Lizard orchid 1981 Homogyne alpina Purple colt's-foot 1988 Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell 1998 S.13(2) sale only Lactuca saligna Least lettuce 1981 Leersia oryzoides Cut-grass 1998 Limonium paradoxum St. David's sea lavender 1981

Removed 1992 Limonium recervum Recurved sea lavender 1981

Removed 1992 Limosella australis Welsh mudwort 1992 Liparis loeselii Fen orchid 1981 Lloydia serotina Snowdon lily 1981 Luronium natans Floating water-plantain 1992 Lychnis alpina Alpine catchfly 1981 Lythrum hyssopifolia Grass-poly 1988 Melampyrum arvense Field cow-wheat 1981 Mentha pulegium Pennyroyal 1988 Minuartia stricta Teesdale sandwort 1981 Najas flexilis Slender naiad 1992 Najas marina Holly-leaved naiad 1988 Ononis reclinata Small restharrow 1988 Ophioglossum lusitanicum Least adder's-tongue 1988 Ophrys fuciflora Late spider-orchid 1981 Ophrys sphegodes Early spider-orchid 1981 Orchis militaris Military orchid 1981 Orchis simia Monkey orchid 1981 Orobanche artemisiae-campestris Oxtongue broomrape 1981 (Orobanche loricata) (Orobanche picridis) Orobanche caryophyllacea Bedstraw broomrape 1981 Orobanche reticulata Thistle broomrape 1981 Petrorhagia nanteuilii Childing pink 1981 Phyllodoce caerulea Blue heath 1981 Phyteuma spicatum Spiked rampion 1992 Polygonatum verticillatum Whorled Solomon's-seal 1981 Polygonum maritimum Sea knotgrass 1981 Potentilla rupestris Rock cinquefoil 1981 Pulicaria vulgaris Small fleabane 1988 Pyrus cordata Plymouth pear 1981 Ranunculus ophioglossifolius Adder's-tongue spearwort 1981 Rhinanthus serotinus Greater yellow-rattle 1981 Romulea columnae Sand crocus 1988 Rumex rupestris Shore dock 1992 Salvia pratensis Meadow clary 1992 Saxifraga cernua Drooping saxifrage 1981 Saxifraga cespitosa Tufted saxifrage 1981 Saxifraga hirculus Yellow marsh-saxifrage 1992 Scirpus triqueter Triangular club-rush 1981 (Scirpus triquetrus) Scleranthus perennis Perennial knawel 1981

- 22 -

Scientific name English name Year scheduled Scorzonera humilis Viper's-grass 1988 Selinum carvifolia Cambridge milk-parsley 1988 Senecio paludosus Fen ragwort 1988 Stachys alpina Limestone woundwort 1981 Stachys germanica Downy woundwort 1981 Tephroseris integrifolia South Stack fleawort 1998 subspecies maritima Teucrium botrys Cut-leaved germander 1988 Teucrium scordium Water germander 1981 Thlaspi perfoliatum Perfoliate penny-cress 1992 Trichomanes speciosum Killarney fern 1981 Veronica spicata Spiked speedwell 1981 Veronica triphyllos Fingered speedwell 1988 Viola persicifolia Fen violet 1981 Woodsia alpina Alpine woodsia 1981 Woodsia ilvensis Oblong woodsia 1981 Mosses Acaulon triquetrum Triangular pygmy-moss 1992 Anomodon longifolius Long-leaved anomodon 1998 Bartramia stricta Rigid apple-moss 1992 Bryum mamillatum Dune thread-moss 1992 Bryum neodamense Long-leaved threadmoss 1998 Bryum schleicheri Schleicher's thread-moss 1992 Buxbaumia viridis Green shield-moss 1992 Cryphaea lamyana Multi-fruited river-moss 1992 Cyclodictyon laetevirens Bright-green cave-moss 1992 Desmatodon cernuus Flamingo moss 1998 Didymodon cordatus (Barbula cordata)

Cordate beard-moss 1992

Didymodon glaucus (Barbula glauca)

Glaucous beard-moss 1992

Ditrichum cornubicum Cornish path-moss 1992 Grimmia unicolor Blunt-leaved grimmia 1992 Hamatocaulis (Drepanocladus) vernicosus

Slender green feather-moss 1992

Hygrohypnum polare Polar feather-moss 1998 Hypnum vaucheri Vaucher's feather-moss 1992 Micromitrium tenerum Millimetre moss 1992 Mielichhoferia mielichhoferi Alpine copper-moss 1992 Orthotrichum obtusifolium Blunt-leaved bristle-moss 1992 Plagiothecium piliferum Hair silk-moss 1992 Rhynchostegium rotundifolium Round-leaved feather-moss 1992 Saelania glaucescens Blue dew-moss 1992 Scorpidium turgescens Large yellow feather-moss 1992 Sphagnum balticum Baltic bog-moss 1992 Thamnobryum angustifolium Derbyshire feather-moss 1992 Zygodon forsteri Knothole moss 1992 Zygodon gracilis Nowell's limestone-moss 1992

- 23 -

Liverworts Scientific name English name Year scheduled Adelanthus lindenbergianus Lindenberg's leafy liverwort 1992 Geocalyx graveolens Turpswort 1992 Gymnomitrion apiculatum Pointed frostwort 1992 Jamesoniella undulifolia Marsh earwort 1992 Lophozia (Leiocolea) rutheana Norfolk flapwort 1992 Marsupella profunda Western rustwort 1992 Petalophyllum ralfsii Petalwort 1992 Riccia bifurca Lizard crystalwort 1992 Southbya nigrella Blackwort 1992 Fungi Battarraea phalloides Sandy stilt puffball 1998 Boletus regius Royal bolete 1998 Buglossoporus pulvinus Oak polypore 1998 Hericinum erinaceum Hedgehog fungus 1998 Lichens Alectoria ochroleuca Alpine sulphur-tresses 1998 Bryoria furcellata Forked hair-lichen 1992 Buellia asterella Starry breck-lichen 1992 Caloplaca luteoalba Orange-fruited elm-lichen 1992 Caloplaca nivalis Snow caloplaca 1992 Catapyrenium psoromoides Tree catapyrenium 1992 Catillaria laureri Laurer's catillaria 1992 Catolechia wahlenbergii Goblin lights 1998 Cladonia convoluta Convoluted Cladonia 1998 Cladonia stricta Upright mountain-cladonia 1992 Collema dichotomum River jelly-lichen 1992 Enterographa elaborata New Forest beech-lichen 1998 Gyalecta ulmi Elm gyalecta 1992 Heterodermia leucomelos Ciliate strap-lichen 1992 Heterodermia propagulifera Coralloid rosette-lichen 1992 Lecanactis hemisphaerica Churchyard lecanactis 1992 Lecanora achariana Tarn lecanora 1992 Lecidea inops Copper lecidea 1992 Nephroma arcticum Arctic kidney-lichen 1992 Pannaria ignobilis Caledonian pannaria 1992 Parmelia minarum New Forest parmelia 1992 Parmentaria chilensis Oil-stain parmentaria 1992 Peltigera lepidophora Ear-lobed dog-lichen 1992 Pertusaria bryontha Alpine moss-pertusaria 1992 Physcia tribacioides Southern grey physcia 1992 Pseudocyphellaria lacerata Ragged pseudocyphellaria 1992 Psora rubiformis Rusty alpine psora 1992 Solenopsora liparina Serpentine solenopsora 1992 Squamarina lentigera Scaly breck-lichen 1992 Teloschistes flavicans Golden hair-lichen 1992 Stoneworts Chara canescens Bearded stonewort 1992 Lamprothamnium papulosum Foxtail stonewort 1988

- 24 -

Appendix 3 Species protected by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations,

1994 SCHEDULE 2 Regulation 38 EUROPEAN PROTECTED SPECIES OF ANIMALS Common name Scientific name Bats, Horseshoe (all species) Rhinolophidae Bats, Typical (all species) Vespertilionidae Butterfly, Large Blue Maculinea arion Cat, Wild Felix silvestris Dolphins, Porpoises and Whales (all species) Cetacea Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius Lizard, Sand Lacerta agilis Newt, Great Crested (or Warty) Triturus cristatus Otter, Common Lutra lutra Snake, Smooth Coronella austriaca Sturgeon Acipenser sturio Toad, Natterjack Bufo calamita Turtles, Marine Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Dermochelys coriacea SCHEDULE 4 Regulation 42 EUROPEAN PROTECTED SPECIES OF PLANTS Common name Scientific name Dock, Shore Rumex rupestris Fern, Killarney Trichomanes speciosum Gentian, Early Gentianella anglica Lady's-slipper Cypripedium calceolus Marshwort, Creeping Apium repens Naiad, Slender Najas flexilis Orchid, Fen Liparis loeselii Plantain, Floating-leaved Water Luronium natans Saxifrage, Yellow Marsh Saxifraga hirculus

- 25 -

- 26 -

Appendix 4 Data sheets for the 11 species proposed for addition, or increased protection, to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 under the Fourth Quinquennial Review

These data sheets have been compiled from the submissions made as part of the Fourth Quinquennial Review process and use a standard set of headings to organise the information.

- 27 -

Recommendation for amendment to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Type of animal: Mammal Scientific name: Arvicola terrestris English name: Water Vole Distribution in Great Britain Throughout England, Scotland and Wales except most Scottish islands. Now patchily distributed and sparse or absent from many areas. For example, the species is now only found at 7.1% of sites in Yorkshire, where it was once considered common, and 1.9% of sites in the south-west. In the Anglian region, the traditional stronghold of the species, voles occurred at 72.4% of sites in 1989-90 but only 29.8% in 1996-98. Distribution elsewhere A Palaearctic species ranging from Great Britain to the Lena Basin in Siberia. Extends from the Arctic Circle to Lake Baikal, north of the Aral Sea, northern Iran and Near East. Status in Britain Long term decline since 1900. This accelerated during the 1980s and 1990s. A national survey in 1989-90 failed to find signs of water vole in 67% of the sites where they had been previously recorded. By 1996-98 the loss of known occupied sites had reached 89%. Populations are now fragmented due to habitat loss or mismanagement, leading to isolation of small populations. Mink predation is considered to further compound the problem. Habitat Largely confined to riparian habitats. More common in slow-flowing lowland rivers with extensive emergent vegetation, than upland areas. Also inhabits ponds and reedbeds. Threats Loss of suitable habitat is probably the underlying cause of the slow decline that has been continuing since the early part of the 20th century. This has been greatly exacerbated in the last 20-25 years by the spread of the introduced American mink, a predator against which the water vole has little defence. Recommendation The water vole is currently on Schedule 5 in respect of Section 9(4) only. We recommend that protection is extended to the whole of Section 9. This would protect the voles against intentional killing, injuring or taking as well as protecting places used for shelter or protection from intentional or reckless damage or destruction.

- 28 -

Justification for recommendation The evidence shows that partial protection of the water vole is not enough to save the species from further decline. 1. The current legal status of the water vole, with partial protection under Section 9, has

caused a great deal of confusion amongst those whose activities may affect them. In particular, many have found it difficult to understand the logic behind protecting the burrows of water voles whilst failing to protect the animals themselves. This apparent ambivalence in the legislation has weakened the message from the conservation agencies about the importance of conserving this species and preventing its complete extinction from some areas. Giving the water vole complete protection under Section 9 would considerably simplify the legal position and emphasise the commitment of the government to the conservation of this priority species. In practical terms, extending legal protection will encourage the major groups whose activities affect water voles, most notably developers and river engineers, to develop policies and working practices designed to avoid causing damage to water vole populations.

2. The most recent national survey for the water vole has confirmed that the rapid decline is

continuing and that the situation is perhaps more serious than was previously thought. Extending legal protection, even marginally, sends a clear message to the wider community about the importance of preventing the extinction of this species. Full protection would place the water vole on the same legal footing as other threatened mammals, such as the red squirrel, common dormouse and bats. The fact that the water vole does not have the legal 'status' of species such as bats or dormice means that its needs are often not taken into consideration or neglected through ignorance during routine maintenance or development.

3. While direct persecution has not been implicated as an important factor in the historical

decline of this species, populations in many areas are now so low that any persecution could be of significant importance.

4. Deliberate persecution. Evidence for this comes from reports where the general public

(usually youngsters) have shot water voles with air rifles, often seriously threatening local populations. This has been reported from at least five areas (Derbyshire, Northumberland, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire and Yorkshire). There is also evidence of deliberate persecution from trapping and killing of water voles at fisheries, to prevent or reduce damage to banks. Even in cases where the police have intervened, persecution has continued as no prosecutions have been possible. There is also evidence of persecution at some water gardens and nurseries, fish farms and game fisheries, where there have been reports of shot or poisoned water voles in recent years, presumably to prevent or reduce the damage that resident water vole populations do to the banks of watercourses and holding ponds etc. In one case, approximately 100 water voles were killed on a single site in a single summer. In another case, an aquatic nursery dealt with a water vole �problem� by trapping the population and releasing them elsewhere.

5. Accidental persecution. Because awareness of the water vole is generally low, there is

considerable potential for accidental persecution. This is likely to be a fairly widespread phenomenon as water voles are either shot or poisoned where they are mistaken for rats,

- 29 -

or occupy the same areas. Cases have been reported for example from Cambridgeshire, Sussex, Dorset, County Durham and Kent. Evidence for this comes from cases of poisoning for rat control, where poison has been spread indiscriminately killing water voles. In one case, poisoning has led to the extinction of an entire population. Accidental trapping has also occurred; several cases are known where water voles have been accidentally trapped during underwater live-trapping operations targeted at other species. In most of those cases one or two water voles drowned in crayfish traps.

6. Other relevant issues. There have many cases where water vole populations have been

lost because developers have circumvented the current legislation. Examples of this are developers translocating populations to unsuitable habitat with little or no monitoring and subsequent death of individuals, and destruction of the original site.

Benefits which would accrue from acceptance of the recommendation 1. A greatly simplified legal position, thus clarifying the presentation of the legal position to

those whose activities may affect water vole populations. 2. An enhanced status for this species, which is still in decline. 3. The law would become very clear in terms of protection afforded to the water vole.

Developers, landowners etc would take their responsibilities much more seriously as they do with other species such as dormice or great crested newts, for example. This means that they would carry out the proper environmental assessment and any consequent mitigations and enhancements etc, rather than cutting corners or ignoring advice � both of which usually end in damage to or loss of water vole populations. The Crown Prosecution Service are more likely to take a case to court in the event of deliberate or reckless damage if the water vole has fully protected status.

4. Deliberate persecution would be minimised through awareness raising of the legal

protection, and prosecutions could be taken where necessary. 5. Rat control and water vole conservation guidelines would help reduce accidental

persecution consistently across the country, thus saving entire populations from potential extinction.

6. Full protection for the water vole would assist greatly with ensuring better routine ditch

management by Internal Drainage Boards, encouraging habitat restoration on farmland and increasing the status of water voles amongst planners and developers. Full protection for the water vole would also clarify current confusion over licensing, particularly for trapping. This would help to regulate trapping which is a growing activity by both researchers and conservation groups.

- 30 -

References EA/WildCRU/EN. (1998). Water Vole Conservation Handbook. Strachan, R. & Jefferies, D.J. (1993). The water vole Arvicola terrestris in Britain 1989-1990: its distribution and changing status. Vincent Wildlife Trust, London, 136pp. Strachan, C., Strachan, R. & Jefferies, D.J. (2000). Preliminary report on the changes in the water vole population of Britain as shown by the national surveys of 1989-1990 and 1996-1998. Vincent Wildlife Trust, London, 18pp. Alastair Driver, Vivien Geen, Brian Lavelle, Katy Dickson, Philip Smith, Chris Parry, Simon Curry, Fran Bayley, Phillipa Harrison, Mike Jordan, Rob Strachan (all pers. comm.).

- 31 -

Recommendation for amendment to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Type of animal: Fish Scientific name: Hippocampus hippocampus English name: Short Snouted Seahorse. Distribution in Great Britain From the eastern most point of Kent along the South coast, up along the North Cornwall and Devon coastline. Around the Isles of Scilly and Channel Islands. Some historic sightings off the coast of Norfolk and up the River Thames. Distribution elsewhere Along the continental coastline of France down into the Bay of Biscay. Along the Northern coast of Spain and Portugal, into and around the whole of the Mediterranean, east as far as the Aegean Sea and into the Black Sea. This species is thought to possibly change throughout its distribution in size and base colouration. There is possibly a population down the Atlantic seaboard side of Africa. Status in Britain Not fully known, but thought to be uncommon. They are a very secretive animal blending in well with rocky and weedy habitats. As a result of the British Seahorse Survey run by The Seahorse Trust since 1994 the Short Snouted Seahorse is not thought to be common. Sightings are usually of individual animals and these sightings are infrequent. It was originally thought to be a transient species to our waters due to this infrequency of sightings but work done by the survey has shown they are in fact indigenous being found all year around. There have been animals of all ages found during the period of the survey from young juveniles to mature adults, including on a couple of occasions a small shoal of new born fry during the late Summer near Jersey in the Channel Islands. Habitat Mixed habitats of macro algae and rocky areas during the Spring, Summer and early Autumn. During the winter they are known to migrate to deeper waters to over winter in the relative stability of these deeper waters. These deep water areas tend to be of rock and silt, with little or no plant life. They are quite often brought up from deeper water by crab and lobster fishermen where it is thought that they are attracted to the pots by the small Crustacea that feed on bait laid down in the pots by fishermen.

- 32 -

Threats Seahorses in general are targeted around the world for the Traditional Medicine Trade, which takes in excess of 30 million animals per year (Vincent 1995). There are more than 65 countries taking part in this trade and new locations are being sort all the time. It will not be long before the British Isles becomes a target for this trade. The second biggest trade threat to Seahorses around the world is for the live use in aquaria, (public and private). It has been suggested that a figure of up to one million animals a year (the vast majority of which never reach the destination they were bound for due to death in transit) are gathered for this trade around the world and very few survive any period of time as they are notoriously difficult to sustain in captivity. The British Isles is now being targeted for collection for the aquarium trade, with a small but significant number of animals being taken in Weymouth Bay in Dorset commercially (price reported as £65 per fish) and a handful of animals being taken by divers and fishermen particularly around the Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey. As stocks diminish in other countries and as more unusual species of Seahorse are sort, then this lucrative trade is bound to increase in our waters, leading to a larger scale fishery. As the exact population status is not understood within our waters any removal of animals from the National population could have disastrous effects. Recommendation Full legal protection by addition of the Short Snouted Seahorse (Hippocampus hippocampus) to Schedule 5, with respect to all parts of Section 9 is appropriate to prevent : taking and killing (Section 9 (1); damage or destruction of a place of shelter, or disturbance (Section 9 (4); sale (Section 9 (5)). Justification for recommendation Because very little is known about our native Seahorses, a precautionary approach is justified for their conservation. We need to follow the lead set by other countries and organisations and give full protection, as early as possible. Once Seahorses have been identified as a potential large scale fishery then it may be too late to conserve the national stocks of these fish. They are already listed as vulnerable by the IUCN (2000 list). In the TRAFFIC (June 1996) report compiled by Amanda Vincent they are the subject of major concern because of their use in the Traditional Medicine and Curio trades. Seahorses can suffer badly at the hands of individuals and organisations that attempt to keep them in aquaria, so by reducing the number of animals taken from the wild (except possibly under licence for captive breeding purposes under approved breeding programmes) collectors will be forced to acquire captive bred animals only. Benefits which would accrue from acceptance of the recommendation Listing the Short Snouted Seahorse on Schedule 5 would prevent the potential loss of this species from around the British Isles before its biology and ecology is fully understood. It is also found in Eel Grass beds and so is vulnerable to disturbance. Measures should be

- 33 -

considered to conserve these areas particularly during the Spring Summer and Autumn, this would not only benefit the Short Snouted Seahorse but as the area is also a nursery for many fish species it would accord overall protection for them which in turn would increase fish yields for many species. Seahorses can suffer badly at the hands of individuals and organisations that attempt to keep them in aquaria so by reducing the number of animals taken from the wild (except possibly under licence for captive breeding purposes under approved programmes) collectors will be able to acquire captive bred animals only. References Garrick-Maidment, N. (ongoing). The British Seahorse Survey. The Seahorse Trust. Garrick-Maidment, N. 1994. Seahorses, conservation and care. TFH. Garrick-Maidment, N. 1997. British Seahorse Survey Report. The Seahorse Trust. Hilton-Taylor, C. 2000. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN. Lowrie, S. 1997. An ID guide to Seahorses of the world. Project Seahorse. Vincent, A. 1996. International Trade in Seahorses. TRAFFIC.

- 34 -

Recommendation for amendment to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Type of animal: Fish Scientific name: Hippocampus guttulatus (formerly ramulosus) English name: Spiny Seahorse (also known as Long Snouted Seahorse, Many

Branched Seahorse). Distribution in Great Britain From the Eastern most point of Kent along the South coast, to Lands End up the west Coast of England, Wales and Scotland as far as the Shetland Isles and all around the coast of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Distribution elsewhere Along the continental coastline of France down into the Bay of Biscay. Along the Northern coast of Spain and Portugal, into and around the whole of the Mediterranean, east as far as the Aegean Sea and into the Black Sea. This species is thought possibly to change in size and base coloration across its distribution. Whether these are subspecies or just area changes is not yet known. Further work will need to be done to determine the status of these colour forms. Status in Britain Not fully known, but they are thought to be uncommon. They are a very secretive fish, made inconspicuous by their camouflage ability of growing weed-like appendages on their bodies. As a result of the British Seahorse Survey, run by The Seahorse Trust since 1994, the Spiny Seahorse is not thought to be common. Sightings are usually of individual animals and these sightings are infrequent. It was originally thought to be a transient species in our waters due to this infrequency of sightings, but work done by the survey has shown they are in fact indigenous and are found all through the year. There have been animals of all ages found during the period of the survey, from young juveniles to mature adults. Habitat Predominantly Eel Grass beds during the Spring, Summer and early Autumn. During the winter they are known to migrate to deeper waters to over winter in the relative stability of these deeper waters. The deep water areas tend to be of rock and silt, with little or no plant life. They are quite often brought up from deeper water by crab and lobster fishermen where it is thought that they are attracted to the pots by the small Crustacea that feed on bait laid down in the pots by fishermen.

- 35 -

Threats Habitat disturbance and loss is a primary cause of concern particularly the Eel Grass beds in which they breed in during the Spring, Summer and early Winter. This habitat is lost due to a number of factors, including silt deposits from land run off and fishing practices such as scalloping through the Eel Grass beds. Marina building and other developments are also damaging, and a naturally occurring wasting disease also results in additional mortality. Seahorses in general are targeted around the world for the Traditional Medicine Trade, which takes in excess of 30 million animals per year (Vincent 1995). There are more than 65 countries taking part in this trade and new locations are being sort all the time. It will not be long before the British Isles becomes a target for this trade. The second biggest trade threat to Seahorses around the world is for keeping in aquaria, (public and private). It has been suggested that a figure of up to one million animals a year (the vast majority of which never reach the destination they were bound for due to death in transit) are gathered for this trade around the world and very few survive any period of time as they are notoriously difficult to sustain in captivity. The British Isles is now being targeted for collection for the aquarium trade, with a small but significant number of animals being taken in Weymouth Bay in Dorset commercially (price reported as £65 per fish) and a handful of animals are taken by divers and fishermen elsewhere. As stocks diminish in other countries and as more unusual species of Seahorse are collected, then this lucrative trade is bound to increase in our waters, leading to a larger scale fishery. As the exact population status is not understood within our waters any removal of animals from the national population could have disastrous effects. Recommendation Full legal protection by addition of the Spiny Seahorse (Hippocampus guttulatus) to Schedule 5, with respect to all parts of Section 9 is appropriate to prevent : taking and killing (Section 9 (1); damage or destruction of a place of shelter, or disturbance (Section 9 (4); sale (Section 9 (5)). Justification for recommendation Because very little is known about our native Seahorses, a precautionary approach is justified for their conservation. We need to follow the lead set by other countries and organisations and give full protection, as early as possible. Once Seahorses have been identified as a potential large scale fishery then it may be too late to conserve the national stocks of these fish. They are already listed as vulnerable by the IUCN (2000 list). In the TRAFFIC (June 1996) report compiled by Amanda Vincent they are the subject of major concern because of their use in the Traditional Medicine and Curio trades. Seahorses can suffer badly at the hands of individuals and organisations that attempt to keep them in aquaria, so by reducing the number of animals taken from the wild (except possibly under licence for captive breeding purposes under approved breeding programmes) collectors will be forced to acquire captive bred animals only.

- 36 -

Benefits which would accrue from acceptance of the recommendation Listing the Spiny Seahorse on Schedule 5 would prevent the potential loss of this species from around the British Isles before its biology and ecology is fully understood. Its habitat (Eel Grass beds) is also vulnerable to disturbance, so measures should be considered to conserve these areas particularly during the Spring Summer and Autumn. This would not only benefit the Spiny Seahorse but because the habitat is also a nursery for many other fish species it would increase fish yields for many species. Seahorses can suffer badly at the hands of individuals and organisations that attempt to keep them in aquaria, so by reducing the number of animals taken from the wild (except possibly under licence for captive breeding purposes under approved breeding programmes) collectors will be forced to acquire captive bred animals only. References Garrick-Maidment, N. (ongoing). The British Seahorse Survey. The Seahorse Trust. Garrick-Maidment, N. 1994. Seahorses, conservation and care. TFH. Garrick-Maidment, N. 1997. British Seahorse Survey Report. The Seahorse Trust. Hilton-Taylor, C. 2000. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN. Lowrie, S. 1997. An ID guide to Seahorses of the world. Project Seahorse. Vincent, A. 1996. International Trade in Seahorses. TRAFFIC.

- 37 -

Recommendation for amendment to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Type of animal: Elasmobranch fish Scientific name: Squatina squatina English name: Angel shark Distribution in Great Britain Formerly common, the Angel Shark is now extremely rare in UK waters (Ellis 2001). CEFAS caught one small specimen in the Irish Sea a few years ago (Jim Ellis pers. comm.) and one specimen taken there by a fisherman, also several years ago, was transferred to the Anglesey Sea Zoo as a rarity. Three other specimens are held in captivity in aquaria elsewhere. Very occasional records are made in other regions. Distribution elsewhere The distribution of the Angel Shark extends from the UK and southern North Sea as far south as coastal waters of north Africa and the Canary Islands. Status in Britain The Angel Shark was formerly common in British waters, the decline of this species is documented by Rogers and Ellis (2000) and Ellis (2001). Habitat A marine fish, with larger individuals occurring in deeper water. Threats Once taken in directed fisheries, until stocks collapsed, or were utilised bycatch in multi-species fisheries. Now threatened as a result of bycatch in benthic fisheries. Several elasmobranch species were reportedly formerly common, widespread and landed in large numbers by targeted and bycatch fisheries, but have been seriously depleted (some possibly to extinction) by unregulated fisheries. This pattern of depletion by fisheries is the result of the heavily 'K-selected' life history characteristics which they share. All are slow growing, mature at a large size and produce only a few large young each year. Under current fishing pressures, very few of these large young survive long enough to reach maturity and breed, which ultimately leads to declining populations. Angel Sharks would benefit from strict legal protection because they are large, robust, easily recognisable animals, lacking internal gas bladders, and may therefore be expected to survive release from fishing gear relatively well. Given the current high levels of mortality on British elasmobranchs greater than 70 cm in length due to fisheries exploitation it is unlikely that any of these species will recover in the absence of legal protection. Current mortality of skates in the Irish Sea is between 0.57-0.71, meaning that between 43-51% of all individuals are killed each year, and 0.59-0.72 in the

- 38 -

North Sea. These estimated mortality rates are in excess of that calculated (0.45) to have driven the Barndoor Skate to near extinction on NW Atlantic shelves. They have resulted in the documented extirpation of the Common Skate from the North Sea and the Irish Sea. Given the similar life histories of these British skates to the Barndoor Skate, current fishing mortality on these skates is sufficient to drive them to extinction. The future for the Angel Shark is similarly bleak. Recommendation Full protection, by addition to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. Justification for recommendation The world population of the Angel Shark was listed as Vulnerable in 2000. The appearance of the Angel Shark is extremely distinctive. This will minimise any ambiguity or conflict in enforcement of the legislation when these animals are taken as bycatch. The Angel Shark can reach a maximum length of at least 183 cm and perhaps as much as 244 cm (although not a skate, it has a similar large, flat-bodied shape and bottom-dwelling character and is, therefore, similarly vulnerable to capture in fisheries, particularly bottom trawls). Female Angel Sharks mature at 126-167 cm long and give birth to 9-20 live young (the number of young in a litter is in proportion to the age and size of the mother). This fecundity appears high compared to mammals and birds, but angel sharks and skates are arguably among the most threatened of all elasmobranchs. Fecundity in fishes generally has little bearing on population dynamics, demography and vulnerability, and generally contributes only 10% to population growth rate in similarly long-lived animals (Heppell et al. 1999). So, the relatively high numbers of eggs laid or pups born is not an indicator that these species are resilient. In contrast, survival to the age of maturity appears to be the critical life stage determining population growth rate and vulnerability. Benefits which would accrue from acceptance of the recommendation Listing under Schedule 5 of the WCA would not only prevent targeted fisheries for this threatened species, but also result in the release, unharmed, of listed elasmobranchs caught as bycatch. References Ellis, J. (2001) Angel Sharks. Shark Focus 12, 10-11. Heppell, S.S., Crowder, L.B. & Menzel, T.R. (1999) Life table analysis of long-lived marine

species with implications for conservation and management. Life in the slow lane: ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals (ed J.A. Musick), pp. 137-147. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Jennings, S., Reynolds, J.D. & Mills, S.C. (1998) Life history correlates of responses to fisheries exploitation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 265, 333-339.

Reynolds, J.D., Jennings, S. & Dulvy, N.K. (2001) Life histories of fishes and population responses to exploitation. Conservation of exploited species (eds. J.D. Reynolds, G.M.

- 39 -

Mace, K.H. Redford & J.G. Robinson), pp. 147-168. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Rogers, S.I. & Ellis, J.R. (2000) Changes in the demersal fish assemblages of British coastal waters during the 20th century. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 866-881.

- 40 -

Recommendation for amendment to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Type of animal: Elasmobranch fish Scientific name: Dipturus batis English name: Common Skate Distribution in Great Britain The Common Skate has virtually disappeared from the North Sea (sporadic catches are still reported in the north). The extirpation of the Common Skate from the Irish Sea has been described by Brander (1981) (although vagrants may still occasionally be reported). Distribution elsewhere The Common Skate is restricted to the north-eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. This species is thought to be threatened in the Mediterranean. The recent Medits 1998 benthic trawl survey of the Mediterranean failed to record any specimens of Common Skates, although this species was caught during a similar survey in 1948 (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001). Status in Britain The Common Skate was formerly common around the British Isles. The decline was well documented by Brander (1981), Walker & Hislop (1998), Dulvy et al. (2000) and the UK Biodiversity Action Plan for this species. Detailed studies have been undertaken of skate and ray populations in the North Sea, utilising long-term data sets (Walker & Heessen 1996, Walker & Hislop 1998). These concluded that the Common Skate has virtually disappeared from the North Sea (sporadic catches are still reported in the north). While skates over 100 cm long used to be common, those larger than 80 cm are now very scarce. All or most reproducing females of the larger species have now been lost as a result of intensive fishing effort, which imposes a total mortality on skate and ray populations well above replacement mortality for all species except for the smallest (only one ray species is within safe biological limits). Habitat A marine fish, which is a predator on bottom-dwelling animals. Threats Once taken in directed fisheries, until stocks collapsed, or were utilised bycatch in multi-species fisheries. Now threatened as a result of bycatch in benthic fisheries. Several elasmobranch species were reportedly formerly common, widespread and landed in large numbers by targeted and bycatch fisheries, but have been seriously depleted (some possibly to extinction) by unregulated fisheries. This pattern of depletion by fisheries is the result of

- 41 -

the heavily 'K-selected' life history characteristics which they share. All are slow growing, mature at a large size and produce only a few large young each year. Under current fishing pressures, very few of these large young survive long enough to reach maturity and breed, which ultimately leads to declining populations. All would benefit from strict legal protection because they are large, robust, easily recognisable animals, lacking internal gas bladders, and may therefore be expected to survive release from fishing gear relatively well. Given the current high levels of mortality on British elasmobranchs greater than 70 cm in length due to fisheries exploitation it is unlikely that any of these species will recover in the absence of legal protection. Current mortality of skates in the Irish Sea is between 0.57-0.71, meaning that between 43-51% of all individuals are killed each year, and 0.59-0.72 in the North Sea. These estimated mortality rates are in excess of that calculated (0.45) to have driven the Barndoor skate to near extinction on NW Atlantic shelves. They have resulted in the documented extirpation of the Common Skate from the North Sea and the Irish Sea. Given the similar life histories of these three British skates to the Barndoor Skate, current fishing mortality on these skates is sufficient to drive them to extinction. Recommendation Full protection, by addition to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. Justification for recommendation Common Skate populations of shelf waters of the NE Atlantic were listed as Critically Endangered on the 2000 IUCN Red List, with their world population Endangered. Body size is known to be a good predictor of vulnerability to exploitation and extinction risk. To date, all flat-bodied elasmobranchs over 120 cm have disappeared from the Irish Sea (a very few individuals, presumably vagrants, are still occasionally caught). The Angel Shark can reach a maximum length of at least 183 cm and perhaps as much as 244 cm (although not a skate, it has a similar large, flat-bodied shape and bottom-dwelling character and is, therefore, similarly vulnerable to capture in fisheries, particularly bottom trawls). The Long-nose Skate reaches a maximum size of 156 cm long, the Black Skate (a poorly known deepwater species) 200 cm long, White Skate 230 cm long and the Common Skate 285 cm. Remaining skate species greater than 70 cm long are also declining rapidly in abundance, and it is only the smallest species of skates that are increasing under the current fishing regime. Body size is a good predictor of extinction vulnerability because it is closely linked to key life history parameters, such as age at maturity and reproductive output, which directly determine the population dynamics, demography, resilience and vulnerability to exploitation of species (Charnov 1993; Jennings et al. 1998; Dulvy et al. 1999; Dulvy & Reynolds 2002; Reynolds et al. 2001). It should be noted that the largest skate species on the US and Canadian west Atlantic shelf, the Barndoor Skate (Dipturus laevis), is nearly extinct (Casey & Myers 1998) and may qualify as Critically Endangered under the 2001 IUCN Red List Criteria. The four British species of long-nosed skates (Common, Long-nose, Black and White) skates are larger than the Barndoor Skate and may, therefore, be regarded as being more vulnerable to extinction than the nearly extinct Barndoor Skate.

- 42 -

Male Common Skate mature at an age of over 10 years old (125 cm long). Females are probably larger and older than this before they mature and begin to produce an estimated maximum of 40 large (14-25 cm long) eggs a year, from which young hatch at a length of 21-22 cm (Du Buit 1977). Little is known of the life history of the other three species of skate, but it is likely that they attain maturity at between 8-10 years of age and lay approximately 50 large eggs per year. This fecundity appears high compared to mammals and birds, but angel sharks and skates are arguably among the most threatened of all elasmobranchs. Fecundity in fishes generally has little bearing on population dynamics, demography and vulnerability, and generally contributes only 10% to population growth rate in similarly long-lived animals (Heppell et al. 1999). So, the relatively high numbers of eggs laid or pups born is not an indicator that these species are resilient. In contrast, survival to the age of maturity appears to be the critical life stage determining population growth rate and vulnerability. The threatened status of the Common Skate is fully recognised by its UK Species Action Plan (UK Biodiversity Group 1999). The Action Plan Objectives for this species include legal protection for the species in at least five key centres of abundance (within 5 years, i.e. by 2002) and, in the longer term, facilitating the migration of skate from refuge populations to areas where they are scarce or have been fished out. Proposed action for achieving these objectives includes seeking protection for the species in UK waters under appropriate fisheries legislation, and protection in refuge areas under appropriate site-based legislation. Following publication of this Plan, it has not been possible to identify more than one centre of abundance � a single refuge population on the west coast of Scotland. It is increasingly apparent that, for this and other similarly threatened species, it will be necessary to use all legislative tools available (including protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act) if populations of this and other similarly threatened species are to be stabilised and past declines reversed. All skates are difficult to identify to species level accurately, especially in the field. Because all of the large �long nosed� species of skate which occur in UK waters are proposed for protection under this Quinquennial Review, misidentification of this group is unlikely to be a problem, even for those juveniles which have not yet attained lengths of 1 m (large size is a diagnostic for adults). This will minimise any ambiguity or conflict in enforcement of the legislation when these animals are taken as bycatch. Benefits which would accrue from acceptance of the recommendation Listing under Schedule 5 of the WCA would not only prevent targeted fisheries for this threatened species, but also result in the release, unharmed, of listed elasmobranchs caught as bycatch. References Brander, K. (1981) Disappearance of Common Skate Raia batis from Irish Sea. Nature, 290,

48-49. Casey, J. & Myers, R.A. (1998) Near extinction of a large, widely distributed fish. Science,

281, 690-692. Charnov, E.L. (1993) Life history invariants. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

- 43 -

Du Buit, M.H. (1977) Age et croissance de R. batis et de R. naevus en Mer Celtique. Journal du Conseil International pour l' Exploration de la Mer, 37, 261-265.

Dulvy, N.K., Metcalfe, J.D., Glanville, J., Pawson, M.G. & Reynolds, J.D. (2000) Fishery stability, local extinctions and shifts in community structure in skates. Conservation Biology, 14, 283-293.

Dulvy, N.K. & Reynolds, J.D. (2002) Predicting vulnerability to extinction in Skates. Conservation Biology, 16, xx.

Heppell, S.S., Crowder, L.B. & Menzel, T.R. (1999) Life table analysis of long-lived marine species with implications for conservation and management. Life in the slow lane: ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals (ed J.A. Musick), pp. 137-147. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Jennings, S., Reynolds, J.D. & Mills, S.C. (1998) Life history correlates of responses to fisheries exploitation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 265, 333-339.

Jukic-Peladic, S., Vrgoc, N., Krstulovic-Sifner, S., Piccinetti, C., Piccinetti-Manfrin, G., Marano, G. & Ungaro, N. (2001) Long-term changes in demersal resources of the Adriatic Sea: comparison between trawl surveys carried out in 1948 and 1998. Fisheries Research, 53, 95-104.

Reynolds, J.D., Jennings, S. & Dulvy, N.K. (2001) Life histories of fishes and population responses to exploitation. Conservation of exploited species (eds. J.D. Reynolds, G.M. Mace, K.H. Redford & J.G. Robinson), pp. 147-168. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rogers, S.I. & Ellis, J.R. (2000) Changes in the demersal fish assemblages of British coastal waters during the 20th century. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 866-881.

Walker, P.A. & Heessen, H.J.L. (1996) Long-term changes in ray populations in the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 53: 1085-1093.

Walker, P.A. & Hislop, J.R.G. (1998) Sensitive skates or resilient rays? Spatial and temporal shifts in ray species composition in the central and north-western North Sea between 1930 and the present day. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55, 392-402.

- 44 -

Recommendation for amendment to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Type of animal: Elasmobranch fish Scientific name: Dipturus nidarosiensis English name: Black Skate Distribution in Great Britain The Black Skate is restricted to deep water in the North East Atlantic, where its distribution and occurrence are poorly known. It is extremely scarce in British coastal waters. Distribution elsewhere The Black Skate is restricted to deep water in the North East Atlantic. Status in Britain The status of the Black Skate is poorly known in British waters, although it shares the same life history and reproductive features of the other skates and is similarly threatened by mortality from bycatch. Detailed studies have been undertaken of skate and ray populations in the North Sea, utilising long-term data sets (Walker & Heessen 1996, Walker & Hislop 1998). These concluded that the Common Skate has virtually disappeared from the North Sea (sporadic catches are still reported in the north). While skates over 100 cm long used to be common, those larger than 80 cm are now very scarce. All or most reproducing females of the larger species have now been lost as a result of intensive fishing effort, which imposes a total mortality on skate and ray populations well above replacement mortality for all species except for the smallest (only one ray species is within safe biological limits). Habitat A deep water marine fish, which is a predator on bottom-dwelling animals. Threats Threatened as a result of bycatch in benthic fisheries. Several elasmobranch species were reportedly formerly common, widespread and landed in large numbers by targeted and bycatch fisheries, but have been seriously depleted (some possibly to extinction) by unregulated fisheries. This pattern of depletion by fisheries is the result of the heavily 'K-selected' life history characteristics which they share. All are slow growing, mature at a large size and produce only a few large young each year. Under current fishing pressures, very few of these large young survive long enough to reach maturity and breed, which ultimately leads to declining populations. All would benefit from strict legal protection because they are large, robust, easily recognisable animals, lacking internal gas bladders, and may therefore be expected to survive release from fishing gear relatively well.

- 45 -

Given the current high levels of mortality on British elasmobranchs greater than 70 cm in length due to fisheries exploitation it is unlikely that any of these species will recover in the absence of legal protection. Current mortality of skates in the Irish Sea is between 0.57-0.71, meaning that between 43-51% of all individuals are killed each year, and 0.59-0.72 in the North Sea. These estimated mortality rates are in excess of that calculated (0.45) to have driven the Barndoor skate to near extinction on NW Atlantic shelves. They have resulted in the documented extirpation of the Common Skate from the North Sea and the Irish Sea. Given the similar life histories of these three British skates to the Barndoor Skate, current fishing mortality on these skates is sufficient to drive them to extinction. Recommendation Full protection, by addition to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. Justification for recommendation The deep water Black Skate is poorly known, but proposed for protection as a precautionary measure (because of the vulnerable life history characteristics it shares with the other species) and to minimise identification problems that might occur if it were necessary to differentiate between listed and unlisted long-nosed skate species. Body size is known to be a good predictor of vulnerability to exploitation and extinction risk. To date, all flat-bodied elasmobranchs over 120 cm have disappeared from the Irish Sea (a very few individuals, presumably vagrants, are still occasionally caught). The Angel Shark can reach a maximum length of at least 183 cm and perhaps as much as 244 cm (although not a skate, it has a similar large, flat-bodied shape and bottom-dwelling character and is, therefore, similarly vulnerable to capture in fisheries, particularly bottom trawls). The Long-nose Skate reaches a maximum size of 156 cm long, the Black Skate (a poorly known deep water species) 200 cm long, White Skate 230 cm long and the Common Skate 285 cm. Remaining skate species greater than 70 cm long are also declining rapidly in abundance, and it is only the smallest species of skates that are increasing under the current fishing regime. Body size is a good predictor of extinction vulnerability because it is closely linked to key life history parameters, such as age at maturity and reproductive output, which directly determine the population dynamics, demography, resilience and vulnerability to exploitation of species (Charnov 1993; Jennings et al. 1998; Dulvy et al. 1999; Dulvy & Reynolds 2002; Reynolds et al. 2001). It should be noted that the largest skate species on the US and Canadian west Atlantic shelf, the Barndoor Skate (Dipturus laevis), is nearly extinct (Casey & Myers 1998) and may qualify as Critically Endangered under the 2001 IUCN Red List Criteria. The four British species of long-nosed skates (Common, Long-nose, Black and White) skates are larger than the Barndoor Skate and may, therefore, be regarded as being more vulnerable to extinction than the nearly extinct Barndoor Skate. Little is known of the life history of the Black Skate, but it is likely that they attain maturity at between 8-10 years of age and lay approximately 50 large eggs per year. This fecundity appears high compared to mammals and birds, but angel sharks and skates are arguably among the most threatened of all elasmobranchs. Fecundity in fishes generally has little bearing on population dynamics, demography and vulnerability, and generally contributes

- 46 -

only 10% to population growth rate in similarly long-lived animals (Heppell et al. 1999). So, the relatively high numbers of eggs laid or pups born is not an indicator that these species are resilient. In contrast, survival to the age of maturity appears to be the critical life stage determining population growth rate and vulnerability. All skates are difficult to identify to species level accurately, especially in the field. Because all of the large �long nosed� species of skate which occur in UK waters are proposed for protection under this Quinquennial Review, misidentification of this group is unlikely to be a problem, even for those juveniles which have not yet attained lengths of 1 m (large size is a diagnostic for adults). The appearance of the Angel Shark is also extremely distinctive. This will minimise any ambiguity or conflict in enforcement of the legislation when these animals are taken as bycatch. Benefits which would accrue from acceptance of the recommendation Listing under Schedule 5 of the WCA would not only prevent targeted fisheries for this threatened species, but also result in the release, unharmed, of listed elasmobranchs caught as bycatch. References Casey, J. & Myers, R.A. (1998) Near extinction of a large, widely distributed fish. Science,

281, 690-692. Charnov, E.L. (1993) Life history invariants. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Du Buit, M.H. (1977) Age et croissance de R. batis et de R. naevus en Mer Celtique.

Journal du Conseil International pour l' Exploration de la Mer, 37, 261-265. Dulvy, N.K., Metcalfe, J.D., Glanville, J., Pawson, M.G. & Reynolds, J.D. (2000) Fishery

stability, local extinctions and shifts in community structure in skates. Conservation Biology, 14, 283-293.

Dulvy, N.K. & Reynolds, J.D. (2002) Predicting vulnerability to extinction in Skates. Conservation Biology, 16, xx.

Heppell, S.S., Crowder, L.B. & Menzel, T.R. (1999) Life table analysis of long-lived marine species with implications for conservation and management. Life in the slow lane: ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals (ed J.A. Musick), pp. 137-147. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Jennings, S., Reynolds, J.D. & Mills, S.C. (1998) Life history correlates of responses to fisheries exploitation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 265, 333-339.

Jukic-Peladic, S., Vrgoc, N., Krstulovic-Sifner, S., Piccinetti, C., Piccinetti-Manfrin, G., Marano, G. & Ungaro, N. (2001) Long-term changes in demersal resources of the Adriatic Sea: comparison between trawl surveys carried out in 1948 and 1998. Fisheries Research, 53, 95-104.

Reynolds, J.D., Jennings, S. & Dulvy, N.K. (2001) Life histories of fishes and population responses to exploitation. Conservation of exploited species (eds. J.D. Reynolds, G.M. Mace, K.H. Redford & J.G. Robinson), pp. 147-168. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rogers, S.I. & Ellis, J.R. (2000) Changes in the demersal fish assemblages of British coastal waters during the 20th century. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 866-881.

- 47 -

Walker, P.A. & Heessen, H.J.L. (1996) Long-term changes in ray populations in the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 53: 1085-1093.

Walker, P.A. & Hislop, J.R.G. (1998) Sensitive skates or resilient rays? Spatial and temporal shifts in ray species composition in the central and north-western North Sea between 1930 and the present day. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55, 392-402.

- 48 -

Recommendation for amendment to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Type of animal: Elasmobranch fish Scientific name: Dipturus oxyrhynchus English name: Long-nose Skate Distribution in Great Britain The Long-nose Skate is extremely scarce in UK coastal waters. A search of the historical literature confirmed that a long-line fishery existed on the Isle of Man targeting both Long-nose and White Skates during the 1880s (Dulvy et al. 2000). Informal questionnaires of older fish processors in Fleetwood have also confirmed that a long-nosed skate species (presumably D. oxyrhinchus), distinct from the common skate (Dipturus batis), was present in the Irish Sea, albeit in excess of 20-30 years ago. There have been no captures of Long-nose Skate in government (Centre for Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, DEFRA formerly MAFF) trawl surveys between 1988 � 1997, in either the autumn or spring surveys of the Irish Sea (Dulvy et al. 2000). By inference it has been concluded that the Long-nose Skate is now extirpated from in the Irish Sea (although vagrants may still occasionally be reported). Distribution elsewhere The Long-nose Skate is restricted to NW European waters of the eastern Atlantic and the western Mediterranean. Long-nose Skate were caught in a survey in the Mediterranean in 1948 (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001), and was also reported in 1998, although the number of records is not indicated by the authors. Status in Britain Records of Long-nose Skate are very infrequent. Detailed studies have been undertaken of skate and ray populations in the North Sea, utilising long-term data sets (Walker & Heessen 1996, Walker & Hislop 1998). While skates over 100 cm long used to be common, those larger than 80 cm are now very scarce. All or most reproducing females of the larger species have now been lost as a result of intensive fishing effort, which imposes a total mortality on skate and ray populations well above replacement mortality for all species except for the smallest (only one ray species is within safe biological limits).

- 49 -

Habitat A marine fish, which is a predator on bottom-dwelling animals. Threats Once taken in directed fisheries, until stocks collapsed, or were utilised bycatch in multi-species fisheries. Now threatened as a result of bycatch in benthic fisheries. Several elasmobranch species were reportedly formerly common, widespread and landed in large numbers by targeted and bycatch fisheries, but have been seriously depleted (some possibly to extinction) by unregulated fisheries. This pattern of depletion by fisheries is the result of the heavily 'K-selected' life history characteristics which they share. All are slow growing, mature at a large size and produce only a few large young each year. Under current fishing pressures, very few of these large young survive long enough to reach maturity and breed, which ultimately leads to declining populations. All would benefit from strict legal protection because they are large, robust, easily recognisable animals, lacking internal gas bladders, and may therefore be expected to survive release from fishing gear relatively well. Given the current high levels of mortality on British elasmobranchs greater than 70 cm in length due to fisheries exploitation it is unlikely that any of these species will recover in the absence of legal protection. Current mortality of skates in the Irish Sea is between 0.57-0.71, meaning that between 43-51% of all individuals are killed each year, and 0.59-0.72 in the North Sea. These estimated mortality rates are in excess of that calculated (0.45) to have driven the Barndoor skate to near extinction on NW Atlantic shelves. They have resulted in the documented extirpation of the Common Skate from the North Sea and the Irish Sea. Given the similar life histories of these three British skates to the Barndoor Skate, current fishing mortality on these skates is sufficient to drive them to extinction. Recommendation Full protection, by addition to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. Justification for recommendation The two shallow water skates, the Long-nose skate and the White Skate, have yet to be assessed under IUCN Red List Criteria, but it is expected that they will be assessed at least as Vulnerable, if not Endangered, due to their extirpation from the Irish Sea, continued absence from the North Sea, and likely poor status in the Mediterranean. Body size is known to be a good predictor of vulnerability to exploitation and extinction risk. To date, all flat-bodied elasmobranchs over 120 cm have disappeared from the Irish Sea (a very few individuals, presumably vagrants, are still occasionally caught). The Angel Shark can reach a maximum length of at least 183 cm and perhaps as much as 244 cm (although not a skate, it has a similar large, flat-bodied shape and bottom-dwelling character and is, therefore, similarly vulnerable to capture in fisheries, particularly bottom trawls). The Long-nose Skate reaches a maximum size of 156 cm long, the Black Skate (a poorly known deepwater species) 200 cm long, White Skate 230 cm long and the Common Skate 285 cm. Remaining skate species greater than 70 cm long are also declining rapidly in abundance, and it is only the smallest species of skates that are increasing under the current fishing regime.

- 50 -

Body size is a good predictor of extinction vulnerability because it is closely linked to key life history parameters, such as age at maturity and reproductive output, which directly determine the population dynamics, demography, resilience and vulnerability to exploitation of species (Charnov 1993; Jennings et al. 1998; Dulvy et al. 1999; Dulvy & Reynolds 2002; Reynolds et al. 2001). It should be noted that the largest skate species on the US and Canadian west Atlantic shelf, the Barndoor Skate (Dipturus laevis), is nearly extinct (Casey & Myers 1998) and may qualify as Critically Endangered under the 2001 IUCN Red List Criteria. The four British species of long-nosed skates (Common, Long-nose, Black and White) skates are larger than the Barndoor Skate and may, therefore, be regarded as being more vulnerable to extinction than the nearly extinct Barndoor Skate. Little is known of the life history of the Long-nose Skate, but it is likely that they attain maturity at between 8-10 years of age and lay approximately 50 large eggs per year. This fecundity appears high compared to mammals and birds, but angel sharks and skates are arguably among the most threatened of all elasmobranchs. Fecundity in fishes generally has little bearing on population dynamics, demography and vulnerability, and generally contributes only 10% to population growth rate in similarly long-lived animals (Heppell et al. 1999). So, the relatively high numbers of eggs laid or pups born is not an indicator that these species are resilient. In contrast, survival to the age of maturity appears to be the critical life stage determining population growth rate and vulnerability. All skates are difficult to identify to species level accurately, especially in the field. Because all of the large �long nosed� species of skate which occur in UK waters are proposed for protection under this Quinquennial Review, misidentification of this group is unlikely to be a problem, even for those juveniles which have not yet attained lengths of 1 m (large size is a diagnostic for adults). This will minimise any ambiguity or conflict in enforcement of the legislation when these animals are taken as bycatch. Benefits which would accrue from acceptance of the recommendation Listing under Schedule 5 of the WCA would not only prevent targeted fisheries for these threatened species, but also result in the release, unharmed, of listed elasmobranchs caught as bycatch. References Brander, K. (1981) Disappearance of Common Skate Raia batis from Irish Sea. Nature, 290,

48-49. Casey, J. & Myers, R.A. (1998) Near extinction of a large, widely distributed fish. Science,

281, 690-692. Charnov, E.L. (1993) Life history invariants. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Du Buit, M.H. (1977) Age et croissance de R. batis et de R. naevus en Mer Celtique.

Journal du Conseil International pour l' Exploration de la Mer, 37, 261-265. Dulvy, N.K., Metcalfe, J.D., Glanville, J., Pawson, M.G. & Reynolds, J.D. (2000) Fishery

stability, local extinctions and shifts in community structure in skates. Conservation Biology, 14, 283-293.

- 51 -

Dulvy, N.K. & Reynolds, J.D. (2002) Predicting vulnerability to extinction in Skates. Conservation Biology, 16, xx.

Heppell, S.S., Crowder, L.B. & Menzel, T.R. (1999) Life table analysis of long-lived marine species with implications for conservation and management. Life in the slow lane: ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals (ed J.A. Musick), pp. 137-147. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Jennings, S., Reynolds, J.D. & Mills, S.C. (1998) Life history correlates of responses to fisheries exploitation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 265, 333-339.

Jukic-Peladic, S., Vrgoc, N., Krstulovic-Sifner, S., Piccinetti, C., Piccinetti-Manfrin, G., Marano, G. & Ungaro, N. (2001) Long-term changes in demersal resources of the Adriatic Sea: comparison between trawl surveys carried out in 1948 and 1998. Fisheries Research, 53, 95-104.

Reynolds, J.D., Jennings, S. & Dulvy, N.K. (2001) Life histories of fishes and population responses to exploitation. Conservation of exploited species (eds. J.D. Reynolds, G.M. Mace, K.H. Redford & J.G. Robinson), pp. 147-168. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rogers, S.I. & Ellis, J.R. (2000) Changes in the demersal fish assemblages of British coastal waters during the 20th century. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 866-881.

Walker, P.A. & Heessen, H.J.L. (1996) Long-term changes in ray populations in the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 53: 1085-1093.

Walker, P.A. & Hislop, J.R.G. (1998) Sensitive skates or resilient rays? Spatial and temporal shifts in ray species composition in the central and north-western North Sea between 1930 and the present day. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55, 392-402.

- 52 -

Recommendation for amendment to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Type of animal: Elasmobranch fish Scientific name: Rostroraja alba English name: White Skate Distribution in Great Britain Current distribution is uncertain, but considered very uncommon in British waters. A search of the historical literature has confirmed that a long-line fishery existed on the Isle of Man targeting both this species and Long-nosed Skate during the 1880s (Dulvy et al. 2000). Additionally, Day (1880-84) described the White Skate as occurring all around the UK and �not uncommon�. There have been no captures of either skate species in government (Centre for Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, DEFRA formerly MAFF) trawl surveys between 1988 � 1997 in either the autumn or spring surveys of the Irish Sea (Dulvy et al. 2000). By inference it has been concluded that White Skate is now extirpated from in the Irish Sea (although vagrants may still occasionally be reported). Distribution elsewhere The White Skate occurs in the north-eastern Atlantic and south-west Indian Ocean. In European waters, the species has been recorded from southern Britain to the Mediterranean. The species is thought to be threatened in the Mediterranean. The recent Medits 1998 benthic trawl survey of the Mediterranean failed to record any specimens of White Skate, although this species was caught during a similar survey in 1948 (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001). The species is listed on Annex III of the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea and Annex III of the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Status in Britain The White Skate was historically common in the British Isles but is now considered very uncommon. Detailed studies have been undertaken of skate and ray populations in the North Sea, utilising long-term data sets (Walker & Heessen 1996, Walker & Hislop 1998). These concluded that the Common Skate has virtually disappeared from the North Sea (sporadic catches are still reported in the north). While skates over 100 cm long used to be common, those larger than 80 cm are now very scarce. All or most reproducing females of the larger species have now been lost as a result of intensive fishing effort, which imposes a total mortality on skate and ray populations well above replacement mortality for all species except for the smallest (only one ray species is within safe biological limits).

- 53 -

Habitat A marine fish, which is a predator on bottom-dwelling animals. Threats Once taken in directed fisheries, until stocks collapsed, or were utilised bycatch in multi-species fisheries. Now threatened as a result of bycatch in benthic fisheries. Several elasmobranch species were reportedly formerly common, widespread and landed in large numbers by targeted and bycatch fisheries, but have been seriously depleted (some possibly to extinction) by unregulated fisheries. This pattern of depletion by fisheries is the result of the heavily 'K-selected' life history characteristics which they share. All are slow growing, mature at a large size and produce only a few large young each year. Under current fishing pressures, very few of these large young survive long enough to reach maturity and breed, which ultimately leads to declining populations. All would benefit from strict legal protection because they are large, robust, easily recognisable animals, lacking internal gas bladders, and may therefore be expected to survive release from fishing gear relatively well. Given the current high levels of mortality on British elasmobranchs greater than 70 cm in length due to fisheries exploitation it is unlikely that any of these species will recover in the absence of legal protection. Current mortality of skates in the Irish Sea is between 0.57-0.71, meaning that between 43-51% of all individuals are killed each year, and 0.59-0.72 in the North Sea. These estimated mortality rates are in excess of that calculated (0.45) to have driven the Barndoor skate to near extinction on NW Atlantic shelves. They have resulted in the documented extirpation of the Common Skate from the North Sea and the Irish Sea. Given the similar life histories of these three British skates to the Barndoor Skate, current fishing mortality on these skates is sufficient to drive them to extinction. Recommendation Full protection, by addition to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. Justification for recommendation The two shallow water skates, the Long-nose skate and the White Skate, have yet to be assessed under IUCN Red List Criteria, but it is expected that they will be assessed at least as Vulnerable, if not Endangered, due to their extirpation from the Irish Sea, continued absence from the North Sea, and likely poor status in the Mediterranean. Body size is known to be a good predictor of vulnerability to exploitation and extinction risk. To date, all flat-bodied elasmobranchs over 120 cm have disappeared from the Irish Sea (a very few individuals, presumably vagrants, are still occasionally caught). The Angel Shark can reach a maximum length of at least 183 cm and perhaps as much as 244 cm (although not a skate, it has a similar large, flat-bodied shape and bottom-dwelling character and is, therefore, similarly vulnerable to capture in fisheries, particularly bottom trawls). The Long-nose Skate reaches a maximum size of 156 cm long, the Black Skate (a poorly known deepwater species) 200 cm long, White Skate 230 cm long and the Common Skate 285 cm. Remaining skate species greater than 70 cm long are also declining rapidly in abundance, and it is only the smallest species of skates that are increasing under the current fishing regime.

- 54 -

Body size is a good predictor of extinction vulnerability because it is closely linked to key life history parameters, such as age at maturity and reproductive output, which directly determine the population dynamics, demography, resilience and vulnerability to exploitation of species (Charnov 1993; Jennings et al. 1998; Dulvy et al. 1999; Dulvy & Reynolds 2002; Reynolds et al. 2001). It should be noted that the largest skate species on the US and Canadian west Atlantic shelf, the Barndoor Skate (Dipturus laevis), is nearly extinct (Casey & Myers 1998) and may qualify as Critically Endangered under the 2001 IUCN Red List Criteria. The four British species of long-nosed skates (Common, Long-nose, Black and White) skates are larger than the Barndoor Skate and may, therefore, be regarded as being more vulnerable to extinction than the nearly extinct Barndoor Skate. Little is known of the life history of the White Skate, but it is likely that they attain maturity at between 8-10 years of age and lay approximately 50 large eggs per year. This fecundity appears high compared to mammals and birds, but angel sharks and skates are arguably among the most threatened of all elasmobranchs. Fecundity in fishes generally has little bearing on population dynamics, demography and vulnerability, and generally contributes only 10% to population growth rate in similarly long-lived animals (Heppell et al. 1999). So, the relatively high numbers of eggs laid or pups born is not an indicator that these species are resilient. In contrast, survival to the age of maturity appears to be the critical life stage determining population growth rate and vulnerability. All skates are difficult to identify to species level accurately, especially in the field. Because all of the large �long nosed� species of skate which occur in UK waters are proposed for protection under this Quinquennial Review, misidentification of this group is unlikely to be a problem, even for those juveniles which have not yet attained lengths of 1 m (large size is a diagnostic for adults). This will minimise any ambiguity or conflict in enforcement of the legislation when these animals are taken as bycatch. Benefits which would accrue from acceptance of the recommendation Listing under Schedule 5 of the WCA would not only prevent targeted fisheries for these threatened species, but also result in the release, unharmed, of listed elasmobranchs caught as bycatch. References Brander, K. (1981) Disappearance of Common Skate Raia batis from Irish Sea. Nature, 290,

48-49. Casey, J. & Myers, R.A. (1998) Near extinction of a large, widely distributed fish. Science,

281, 690-692. Charnov, E.L. (1993) Life history invariants. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Du Buit, M.H. (1977) Age et croissance de R. batis et de R. naevus en Mer Celtique.

Journal du Conseil International pour l' Exploration de la Mer, 37, 261-265. Dulvy, N.K., Metcalfe, J.D., Glanville, J., Pawson, M.G. & Reynolds, J.D. (2000) Fishery

stability, local extinctions and shifts in community structure in skates. Conservation Biology, 14, 283-293.

- 55 -

Dulvy, N.K. & Reynolds, J.D. (2002) Predicting vulnerability to extinction in Skates. Conservation Biology, 16, xx.

Heppell, S.S., Crowder, L.B. & Menzel, T.R. (1999) Life table analysis of long-lived marine species with implications for conservation and management. Life in the slow lane: ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals (ed J.A. Musick), pp. 137-147. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Jennings, S., Reynolds, J.D. & Mills, S.C. (1998) Life history correlates of responses to fisheries exploitation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 265, 333-339.

Jukic-Peladic, S., Vrgoc, N., Krstulovic-Sifner, S., Piccinetti, C., Piccinetti-Manfrin, G., Marano, G. & Ungaro, N. (2001) Long-term changes in demersal resources of the Adriatic Sea: comparison between trawl surveys carried out in 1948 and 1998. Fisheries Research, 53, 95-104.

Reynolds, J.D., Jennings, S. & Dulvy, N.K. (2001) Life histories of fishes and population responses to exploitation. Conservation of exploited species (eds. J.D. Reynolds, G.M. Mace, K.H. Redford & J.G. Robinson), pp. 147-168. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rogers, S.I. & Ellis, J.R. (2000) Changes in the demersal fish assemblages of British coastal waters during the 20th century. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 866-881.

Walker, P.A. & Heessen, H.J.L. (1996) Long-term changes in ray populations in the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 53: 1085-1093.

Walker, P.A. & Hislop, J.R.G. (1998) Sensitive skates or resilient rays? Spatial and temporal shifts in ray species composition in the central and north-western North Sea between 1930 and the present day. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55, 392-402.

- 56 -

Recommendation for amendment to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Type of animal: Mollusc Scientific name: Helix pomatia English name: The Roman snail (also known as the apple snail; edible snail; vine

snail) Distribution in Great Britain It is distributed chiefly in a broad band of England, running eastwards from the Cotswolds to the Chilterns and also scattered along the North Downs of Surrey and Kent. Further isolated colonies in central and southern England are likely to be deliberate introductions. Its Post-glacial history is uncertain, but it is likely to be a well-established introduction. There is little to disprove the belief that the species was introduced by the Romans for food, probably about 2000 years ago. Distribution elsewhere Mainly central and south-east Europe, but extending westwards to France and England, and north to the coasts of the southern Baltic. Status in Britain Very locally distributed and occasionally quite common at sites where public access is restricted. Habitat A fairly catholic range of relatively undisturbed habitats on well-drained, calcareous soils. It may be found in hedges, hedge banks, rank grassland and open woodland and scrub. Unlike the Helix aspersa the garden snail, it is not associated with human habitations or gardens. Threats Habitat destruction and disturbance by intensive farming and developments are relatively minor threat. The main threats comes from commercial collection for use in restaurants, sale in delicatessens and market stalls and increasingly by amateur cooks and �food for free� enthusiasts. Recommendation Add to Schedule 5 for Section 9(1) killing, injuring & taking and Section 9(5) sale.

- 57 -

Justification for recommendation H. pomatia is a large snail, which is relatively easily found when the animal is active in the late spring and early summer. The adults are long-lived and recruitment of new adults to populations is slow. As a consequence of the ease of collection and slow recovery it is relatively easy for populations to be depleted or lost. Most U.K. populations are isolated from adjoining populations and so once lost from a site, natural recolonisation is unlikely. Throughout much of its European range the species is described as experiencing population declines due chiefly, as in England, to collection for human consumption. Survey work in Gloucestershire has shown that colonies nearest to Bristol have become extinct and the National Trust has reported over-collecting and significant population declines elsewhere in the Cotswolds. There are also well-researched accounts of over-collecting leading to population declines on the North Downs in Surrey (e.g. Boxhill, Norbury Park and the Mickleham valley). Wells & Chatfield (1992) place the snail in the threat category �of special concern�; the species is listed on (1) Appendix III of the Bern Convention, (2) the IUCN Red List (IUCN 1990) and (3) EC Directive Annex Va. The collection of H. pomatia is subject to a wide range of regional and local controls in other European countries including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxemborg, Netherlands, Poland, and Switzerland. Although H. pomatia is probably an �ancient introduction� to the British fauna (the likely pedigree extends back about 2000 years), it meets Schedule 5 criteria because: • The organism is endangered in its native range (see paragraph above) giving the isolated

UK populations particular significance; • Information clearly demonstrates that the species does not have an adverse impact on

important native species or ecosystems; • The natural range of the species reaches the north-west coast of Europe (Atlantic coast of

France). Benefits which would accrue from acceptance of the recommendation Addition of H. pomatia to Schedule 5 of the Act would considerably strengthen protection for the species in helping to prevent both casual and commercial collection, which is increasingly putting U.K populations at risk. References Wells, S.M. & Chatfield, J. E. 1992. Threatened non-marine molluscs of Europe, Nature and Environment, No. 64. Council of Europe Press, Strasbourg. Kerney, M. P. 1999. Atlas of the Land and freshwater Molluscs of Britain and Europe. Harley Books, Colchester.

- 58 -

Recommendation for amendment to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Type of animal: Moth Scientific name: Zygaena lonicerae (Scheven) subspecies jocelynae Tremewan English name: The Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet (or Talisker Burnet) Distribution in Great Britain This subspecies is known from only four colonies on the Isle of Skye, Scotland. It was described as a new subspecies in 1962, but has not been found elsewhere in Scotland since. Distribution elsewhere This subspecies is not known from outside of the Isle of Skye, Scotland. It is represented by different subspecies elsewhere in the Palaearctic region. Status in Britain The Talisker Burnet, Zygaena lonicerae subspecies jocelynae, is regarded as of Red Data Book status in Scotland, although it was not included in the insect Red Data Book (Shirt, 1987). The other British subspecies of the Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet (Zygaena lonicerae latomarginata) is widely distributed and locally common in England and the east of South Wales, hence it is not threatened and is not proposed for legal protection. Habitat Ungrazed grassland on steep cliffs by the sea, maintained in suitable ecological conditions by regular landslips and erosion on at least one site. Larvae feed on Meadow-vetchling Lathyrus pratensis and adults fly in June-July. Threats Recent evidence has been obtained of commercial collecting of larvae, for sale as livestock, at such a large scale as to be a significant threat to this subspecies. Previously, there had been no indication of damaging collecting or trade in British Burnet moths. Recommendation Full protection, by addition to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. Justification for recommendation The small number of colonies, plus recent evidence of commercial collecting of this subspecies, indicates that the survival prospects of this subspecies will be improved by full legal protection.

- 59 -

Benefits which would accrue from acceptance of the recommendation Collection of any life stage would only be allowed under licence, thus commercial collecting that threatens the small number of colonies of the Talisker Burnet would cease, allowing the populations to remain at the carrying capacity of their sites. The related New Forest Burnet (Zygaena viciae argyllensis), now only known from one site in western Scotland, is already a fully protected species. References Shirt, D.B. (Ed.) 1987. British Red Data Books: 2. Insects. xliv+402 pp. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough. Tremewan, W.G. (1985) Zygaenidae in: The Moths and Butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland 2. pp. 112-113. Harley Books, Colchester.

- 60 -

Recommendation for amendment to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Type of animal: Moth Scientific name: Zygaena loti (Denis & Schiffermüller) subspecies scotica Rowland-

Brown English name: The Slender Scotch Burnet Distribution in Great Britain This subspecies is known from only six or seven sites with inter-connected colonies, on the islands of Mull and Ulva, Scotland. It was described as a new subspecies in 1919, but has not been found elsewhere in Scotland since. The species does not occur elsewhere in Britain. Distribution elsewhere This subspecies is not known from outside of the islands of Mull and Ulva, Scotland. It is represented by different subspecies elsewhere in the Palaearctic region. Status in Britain The Slender Scotch Burnet, Zygaena loti subspecies scotica, is listed as Red Data Book 3 (Rare) in the insect Red Data Book (Shirt, 1987). Habitat Low cliffs and grassy banks by the coast, maintained in suitable ecological conditions by erosion causing regular rock and soil slides. Larvae feed on Bird's-foot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus and adults fly in June-July. Threats Recent evidence has been obtained of commercial collecting of larvae, for sale as livestock, at such a large scale as to be a significant threat to this subspecies. Previously, there had been no indication of damaging collecting or trade in British Burnet moths. Recommendation Full protection, by addition to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. Justification for recommendation The small number of colonies, plus recent evidence of commercial collecting of this subspecies, indicates that the survival prospects of this subspecies will be improved by full legal protection.

- 61 -

- 62 -

Benefits which would accrue from acceptance of the recommendation Collection of any life stage would only be allowed under licence, thus commercial collecting that threatens the small number of colonies of the Slender Scotch Burnet would cease, allowing the populations to remain at the carrying capacity of their sites. The related New Forest Burnet (Zygaena viciae argyllensis), now only known from one site in western Scotland, is already a fully protected species. References Shirt, D.B. (Ed.) 1987. British Red Data Books: 2. Insects. xliv+402 pp. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough. Tremewan, W.G. (1985) Zygaenidae in: The Moths and Butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland 2. p. 106. Harley Books, Colchester.